Is our 2 party system just a con?

[randomx]

@pmccarthy , My God, that is one helluva lot of money and for what, what a disgrace. Media should be all over this stuff.

Edited 21 hours ago by randomx

[Marty_d]

2 hours ago, pmccarthy said:

This is the worst period of government I can remember in my lifetime. Perhaps except the Whitlam years. The ideology is to take from us all and redistribute to those who the Government sees as deserving. For which, read labor voters.

Oh, how's that? I'd really love to know how the government works out who voted for them and distributes what it's "taken from everyone" to those people only.

You've obviously lived through more governments than me, but I've lived through 3 worse governments than this - Howard, Abbott and Morrison.

[willedoo]

2 hours ago, pmccarthy said:

The ideology is to take from us all and redistribute to those who the Government sees as deserving. For which, read labor voters.

As the saying goes, socialism works great until you run out of someone else's money.

[facthunter]

What Bl@@dy saying? You can find a "saying" for anything these days. Wealth distribution Trends to favour less and Less of the People, who all want everything done by the government but to Pay no taxes. Where? The TOP few % get the Perks because they can reward in kind.. Packer "said Paying tax for the rich is Optional".  Do you want it Like Trump wants America to be.??    I doubt it.  Menzies brought in child Endowment. Was HE a raving Socials lefty?   A decent  Civilised society doesn't neglect it's needy.  Everyone should have access to Health services and education, Sewerage Roads and drainage etc. The Basics at Least.  Nev .

[Marty_d]

1 hour ago, willedoo said:

As the saying goes, socialism works great until you run out of someone else's money.

Wealth accumulates wealth.

You can't tell me Gina "earned" 40 bill.

With that saying of yours, I'd be asking where the "someone else" got their money, because it was most likely them or their ancestor being a robber baron.

[willedoo]

7 minutes ago, Marty_d said:

With that saying of yours, I'd be asking where the "someone else" got their money, because it was most likely them or their ancestor being a robber baron.

Not my saying, just quoting one.

[randomx]

11 hours ago, old man emu said:

Isn't it amazing how the Information Highway has led us to a destination where we have contempt for those who tell us that they are working for our benefit?

 

 

Trouble is, it's far more than that. The numbers on just about everything after what 4yrs of this one, , tell it all.

 

 

 

 

 

[Siso]

22 hours ago, nomadpete said:

Unfortunately the cynics among us have become so disillusioned that they/we have stopped looking for good motives in our leaders. The worst of the worst have tainted the better ones.

23 hours ago, old man emu said:

Isn't it amazing how the Information Highway has led us to a destination where we have contempt for those who tell us that they are working for our benefit?

Are you guys saying we should just accept that politicians are always going to lie for our benefit? Why worry about having election campaigns then. Do we just pick those whose lies matter least.

[facthunter]

wille IIF you quote it you Own it unless you state otherwise.

  Siso, We have Far from the worst government around. You have to read a lot of rubbish to believe otherwise and there's PLENTY of that ABOUT.  It's easy to just rave on with little facts to back it up. The rest of the World thinks WE are doing alright in the circumstances. That doesn't just happen by Itself.. Nev

  

[octave]

Are politicians worse than they used to be?   The problem is, it often comes down to your own perception.

 

I asked AI:

 

"Are Australian politicians of today more or less corrupt than in the past? Is there any way of knowing if politicians lie now more than in the past? "

 

 

There’s a frustrating answer here: we probably can’t measure it cleanly across history — but we can say a few useful things with some confidence.

Corruption: probably less blatant than in parts of the past

If you go back through Australian political history, there were periods where corruption was remarkably open by modern standards:

• state “machine politics” in parts of NSW and Queensland

• patronage jobs and contracts

• cash donations with little transparency

• ministers mixing closely with developers, police, gambling interests, unions, or business figures

• weak anti-corruption oversight

Australia has had major scandals across decades:

• the Loans Affair

• the WA Inc

• the Fitzgerald Inquiry

The big difference today is not necessarily that human nature changed — it’s that:

• investigative journalism is stronger and faster

• digital records leave trails

• freedom-of-information systems exist

• anti-corruption commissions are more common

• donations and lobbying are at least partially disclosed

• politicians operate under constant media and social-media scrutiny

Bodies like the National Anti-Corruption Commission now exist federally, which would have been politically unimaginable decades ago.

So in terms of brown paper bag corruption — direct bribery, obvious cronyism, outright abuse of office — Australia is probably cleaner than some earlier eras.

But modern corruption is often subtler

Many people argue corruption today has shifted form rather than disappeared. Instead of obvious bribery, critics point to:

• revolving doors between politics and industry

• lobbying influence

• political donations

• pork-barrelling

• jobs for former ministers

• opaque consultancy contracts

• “legal but questionable” conduct

This creates a strange effect:

• fewer spectacularly crooked politicians perhaps

• but more sophisticated systems of influence

A lot of public distrust comes from the feeling that powerful interests still get privileged access, even if it happens within legal frameworks.

Do politicians lie more now?

This is even harder to measure.

People often feel politicians lie more now, but there are several complications.

1. We see vastly more of them

Past politicians could make contradictory statements in different towns and there might be no recording of it. Today:

• every interview is clipped

• every tweet archived

• every contradiction shared instantly

So modern lying is much more visible and searchable.

2. Media cycles reward rapid messaging

Modern politics runs 24/7. Politicians are constantly reacting:

• breakfast TV

• radio

• social media

• press conferences

• podcasts

That environment encourages spin, simplification, evasiveness, and talking points.

3. “Lie” is difficult to define

There’s a difference between:

• being mistaken

• exaggerating

• changing position

• using selective statistics

• deliberate deception

Historians can identify some famous past lies easily:

• war justifications

• broken promises

• concealed scandals

• misleading parliament

But systematic fact-checking barely existed historically, so comparisons are shaky.

One thing that has changed: public tolerance

Australians may actually be less tolerant of political dishonesty now than in some earlier periods.

There’s more expectation of:

• transparency

• accountability

• resignation after scandals

• evidence for claims

At the same time, partisan media and online tribalism can make supporters more willing to excuse dishonesty from “their side.”

The paradox

Modern politicians may not necessarily be morally worse than earlier generations. But:

• they operate in a more media-saturated environment

• every flaw is amplified

• trust in institutions has declined generally

• political communication has become more professionalised and strategic

So people often perceive politics as more dishonest even if some forms of outright corruption have actually decreased.

A historian might summarise it this way:

Old corruption was often cruder and more direct.
Modern corruption, where it exists, is more procedural, legalistic, and hidden inside systems of influence.

And political lying probably hasn’t been invented by the internet age — we just now possess a permanent searchable archive of it.

Edited 1 hour ago by octave

[facthunter]

A lot of FILL and obfuscation in that answer. Transparency is what is required. I suggest there's no more  corruption in Politics than most other things like Banks, etc. Politicians are very Public figures. I wouldn't like to be One and Have to put up with all the BS, Slander and lack of any private Life. Their tenure is only till the next election.  You could make more money other ways in a lot of cases. They are Not overpaid . Nev

[Siso]

I'm not saying they are the worst government around, but are you saying that it is OK because there are worse ones around? I also think that the recent lies within the budget would have been talked about before the election. You are right that they may only be in for one term but they know that before hand and one reason for the generous pension schemes although its not as relevant as it use to be. When the pension was implemented people use to have one job their whole working life, not so anymore. 

 

I hold people in office to a high standard, but that standard is not reached as often as it should be.

 

They do work in a media saturated society now so you would think they would be more honest as they should now chances are they are going to get caught. I believe they don't care because I think they are smart enough to realise this. The way some (all) of them act in question time when they get asked a question they don't answer makes a mockery of the whole system!

[facthunter]

The LIES bit is being overblown and changed circumstances (Not of their Making) forced them to do something different. There are exemptions and grandfathering , so check the whole thing out. A LOT of unforeseen things Have Happened SINCE the election. They reacted and that's what should have happened IF they do the responsible thing in the CHANGED circumstances.   We are getting through the Fuel situation Pretty well.  (and Plenty of other things). Nev

[willedoo]

26 minutes ago, Siso said:

I also think that the recent lies within the budget would have been talked about before the election.

That's always possible, but I really doubt they went to the election intending to deceive voters. Stemming the exit of a lot of their younger voters has more to do with the broken word. For Labor, going back on their word is probably seen as the least damaging option compared to losing a lot of Gen X and younger voters. Their polling is sending them a message that it's not only the coalition that stands to lose by the surge in support for One Nation.

 

The intergenerational inequity they are talking about constantly these days existed before the last federal election when they ruled out the changes they are now introducing. At that election One Nation polled about 6% and a lot has changed since then with almost one in four voters expressing support in polls. Among males in their thirties, that number rises to one in three. That's a lot for Labor to digest and the political expediency of stemming the flow outweighs the damage caused by breaking their word in their way of thinking. They're smart enough to know they can't stay in power without the vote of aspirational young people, and the budget is a big gamble that they're hoping won't backfire on them. Time will tell on that one.