Guest Andys@coffs Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 Surely this country has bigger problems than fast internet........ Yes it does...but its symptomatic of the change in long term vision we are seeing in all politicians.....long term now doesn't look any further out than the next election. That would be fine if real nation building activities could be shoehorned into a single election cycle but they cant! Turnbull and Abbott were both complicit in the vast changes to NBN and I'm pretty sure that MT was, by virtue of previous operations as a director of internet company's as aware as anyone else of the technical merits of fibre and the absolute falsehoods he was sprouting about alternates and stretching out current solutions...... When speaking to the general population its Ok in my opinion to simplify, but when that simplification takes a complex concept 180 degrees from the original that isn't simplification that's outright misrepresentation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 Perhaps, but when Turnbull was given the job of" destroying the NBN ". What hope have you got? Fast internet would produce users as time goes on, and disperse the population from the big cities. You could have surgery performed remotely. Buying back and degrading to copper in places will be more costly in the long run than the original idea. I think it is already. You need vision occasionally to get things done, properly. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M61A1 Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 Yes it does...but its symptomatic of the change in long term vision we are seeing in all politicians.....long term now doesn't look any further out than the next election. That would be fine if real nation building activities could be shoehorned into a single election cycle but they cant!. Probably the wisest thing anyone said about politics on this forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andys@coffs Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 I don't normally get involved in political debates as it's a total waste of time and effort. Yes, I do vote but for which party is my business. This thread has now turned into a 'discussion' on who was the best or worst PM we've had recently so let me ask, who, within our parliamentary system, do you think would make a good PM and why, excluding Abbott and Turnbull obviously.My choice...................Nick Zenerphon (spelling!) Down to earth, speaks for the people, thinks for the people and not interested in lining his own nest or pockets. His policies I don't know but they're bound to be better thought out than any of the other w****rs near the top of the tree at present. Tony WIndsor was, imho a statesman......Barnaby Joyce now sits in his seat, but I heard that Tony is going to recontest the seat at the next election (ABC last night) If that happened it would be good, but again same issue as NX he's an independent (or at least was...remains to be seen next time around...I know he wont be a Nat unless BJ is going back to outback QLD) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 It's meant to be an aviation forum. I don't come here looking for wise political statements. (fortunately). On the subject of Windsor He had an enormous personal following in that seat and when you leave the Nats they throw everything at you They are good haters. He has integrity, a word most of the others don't know the meaning of. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andys@coffs Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 Probably the wisest thing anyone said about politics on this forum. So the question is, are politicians merely becoming more myopic, or are we the general population only interested in the absolute now! I think its the former, perhaps because there is a chance it can be changed, if the latter then what hope have we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dutchroll Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 vote for pauline dazza, you know you want to Early in the cruise one day, on a sector from Sydney to Perth, my compatriot in the other seat started saying how he really liked Pauline and what she stood for. You have no idea how slowly that "total distance to run" number on the flight management computer ticked over that day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbo Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 Turbull should do the honest thing and call and election now, let him earn the position instead of stealing it... Tony worked his but off to win the election over Labour, what did Turnbull do? Nothing......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willedoo Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 Nick Xenophon is my favourite politician. Not sure you can have a PM without a party though. Yes you can, Marty. There's nothing in the Constitution that prevents it. Most of our system works on convention, and it's only convention that the PM is the leader of the party with the majority of seats in the House of Reps. It's totally allowable for the party with the majority to nominate an independant or someone from the opposition to the position as PM. Then all the GG has to do is accept it. The original Westminister system is parlimentary representation, but over time we've perverted it into a partisan party system. We could have an independant like Nick Xenophon as PM, a bi-partisan LNP/Labor cabinet and every three years vote for a local candidate in our own electorate based on their merits. Not sure how it would work, but it would be closer to the original system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted September 15, 2015 Author Share Posted September 15, 2015 nick is a senator, you can't run the parliament from the senate. stuck with malcolm or billy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted September 15, 2015 Author Share Posted September 15, 2015 Politics in Australia is now largely driven by political donations from corporations. There is no real difference in the direction the country will end up as the corporations seek to bleed every cent out of the country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 The party vote was by secret ballot and no lives were lost. Bit of an improvement on the way it's done in most parts of the world. They gave him long enough and he put himself on probation. He's a street fighter and destroyer. Not a leader (unless a dictator) so not inclusive team player or negotiator or a diplomat in any way. They would have been anihilated at the next election the way they were going , and they will do almost anything to hold power. Personal ratings constantly low. I haven't much time for Turnbull either but he is an alternative (off the shelf) leader, relatively popular with the electorate generally.Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty_d Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 So the question is, are politicians merely becoming more myopic, or are we the general population only interested in the absolute now! I think its the former, perhaps because there is a chance it can be changed, if the latter then what hope have we? There seem to be multiple problems that are preventing long-term nation building projects. Firstly there's the petty point-scoring displayed by both parties in recent times. Then the constant media cycle which encourages short-term reactive responses from pollies. Ideology comes into it too. Lack of will to even be seen to be cooperating or bi-partisan, in case it offends the extremist supporters. There's a couple of obvious examples - recently Labor wanted to look at tax concessions on high superannuation, and LNP wanted to look at lowering the assets test for rich part-pensioners. Both good policies. Both slammed by the other party with exaggeration and hyperbole. Result? Unlikely that either will get up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willedoo Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 nick is a senator, you can't run the parliament from the senate. stuck with malcolm or billy There's nothing to stop a senator from becoming PM, it just doesn't work in practice, so you're right, FT. John Gorton was the only senator ever appointed as PM. He held the PM's job as a senator for almost a month before resigning from the senate to contest a lower house seat in a by election. In the 23 day period between resigning and the by election being held, we had a PM who held no seat at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaz3g Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 Lets hope we do get a new Minister for Aviation or at least a new Minister for Transport, and let's also hope it's someone who is interested and capable unlike the last several incumbents. Kaz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dutchroll Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 I'm not a Shorten fan either. I honestly think he's in big trouble, as Turnbull is far more palatable to swinging voters and people who sit somewhere near the middle on the left/right spectrum of politics. TA's appeal was always to hardcore conservatives - the ones we now observe kicking, screaming and throwing things in the midst of the mother of all tanties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Koreelah Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 Bill shorten and his union thugs are all corrupt,he will kill all incentive in this country if he gets in power ,when will people wake up , labor is not good for the country and has dragged us down so many times hawke,keating,crudd,julia , what a mess they got us into, ,pollies are just that,but at least libs have a track record of getting us out of the labor induced shxxtcheers gareth A sweeping genalisation, Gareth, which does not hold true for the current LNP government. It depends on what you define as "shxxt". Using purely short-term economic measurements you are probably right. Howard sold assets to balance the books and squandered the minerals boom. Instead of investing in the nation-building infrastructure we need, he gave it away as tax cuts to the middle class. He sold off NW Shelf gas for peanuts and over-ruled the RAAF selection process to commit us to the F-35. To his credit, he kept the nasty Corporations-right-to-sue-governments clause out of the Free Trade deal with the USA. If only Andrew Rob would keep it out of the Trans Pacific Partnership. Labor governments have given us some longer-term winners, such as the Snowy Mountain Scheme (which Menzies opposed) and our current close and lucrative relationship with China. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M61A1 Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 So the question is, are politicians merely becoming more myopic, or are we the general population only interested in the absolute now! I think its the former, perhaps because there is a chance it can be changed, if the latter then what hope have we? Unfortunately, I think it's the latter, and that sooner or later we'll run the place into the ground. Even if we had a politician with big enough balls the sort our country out, they'd only be in for one term, because they wouldn't be popular. Then the very next popular one would undo it all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Koreelah Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 Unfortunately, I think it's the latter, and that sooner or later we'll run the place into the ground. Even if we had a politician with big enough balls the sort our country out, they'd only be in for one term, because they wouldn't be popular. Then the very next popular one would undo it all. I tend to agree. What we need is a LEADER. Someone with vision, intelligence and the skill to take us along with him. If only the media would allow that to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty_d Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 Even if we had a politician with big enough balls... Here he is. Unfortunately he couldn't handle the heat and went to water. (No nose for trouble!) [ATTACH]47707._xfImport[/ATTACH] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetjr Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 Isnt federal politics the ultimate committee? Even worse, its directed by constant popularity polls. Your going to end up with a lot of camels when horses are needed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrZoos Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 Turnbull should do the honest thing and call and election now, let him earn the position instead of stealing it... Tony worked his but off to win the election over Labour, what did Turnbull do? Nothing......... Robbo is there something you are not telling us .....??? Why the passion for Tony...i feel for him too, but fairs fair...they gave him 6 months after a lot of gafs and he's made a fair few more.... If Turnbull is smart he will call an election after the first poll that shows he is getting a honeymoon following, before they get a chance to replace Bubble-o-Bill..that might mean in the next 6 weeks...A late November to early December election King Billy has union grub written all over him and wont be able to shake it....that mud sticks..unionists wont see it as mud, but everyone else thinks its the smelly kind of mud Labour needs a clean skin without 20 years of past Labour /union deals under his/her belt to emerge at all the wrong times Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 It's spelled Labor in Australia. Abbott has a full on fight going with unions. Last I heard it wasn't illegal to belong to one. Look who drew up the terms of reference for the Royal Commission and they went for Rudd ( the Ninth investigation into pink batt associated deaths) and Gillard (who they never let up on) and then Shorten. It's obviously effective. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty_d Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 I agree that Labor need to shake off Shorten, whether or not he was involved in dodgy dealings he's tainted. It isn't going to be easy for them though, because they tightened the rules around rolling leaders when Kev came back. Personally I reckon they should have weighted membership voting more than caucus - when Shorten got in he had 64% of caucus but only 40% of the membership vote. In effect while the caucus numbers were 55-31 in Shorten's favour, the membership vote was 18,230 - 12,196 in Albo's favour - 6,000 more members thought that Albo would make a better leader and I reckon they're right. If not Albo, then Tanya. Even Chris Bowen would be a more palatable choice than Shorten. If they did it quickly and got their ducks in a row for the next election we may see a good fight rather than a populist Turnbull whitewash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teckair Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 Turbull should do the honest thing and call and election now, let him earn the position instead of stealing it... Tony worked his but off to win the election over Labour, what did Turnbull do? Nothing......... Do the honest thing? He is a politician. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now