Is our 2 party system just a con?

[Jerry_Atrick]

7 hours ago, Siso said:

Not really productive, people saying that and calling people things like "perilous pauline" and what ever people call Trump reminds me of how Sky news talk about people. So some are no better than the people, organisations they dispise.

Oh, well let's see that the MAGA Master of name calling does: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nicknames_used_by_Donald_Trump

 

Yet the minute someone offends his sensibilities, he is on the line to defamation lawyers. Now, who else has been on the line to defamation lawyers when people call her names? 

 

I reserve the right to bag anyone I think is not doing the right thing - that is a cherished right of freedom of speech... But I won't bag them without at least there being evidence to do so, unlike others aforementioned. 

 

 

@Siso - We all get your argument - she is playing within the rules so bag the pollies for not changing the rules and not the ones playing within the rules. If life were that black and white, it would be a better place. But the reality she and her ilk have resources and access to disproportionately bend the wilingness of the rule makers to their aims and objectives and they are not afraid to use it. 

 

Yep - she employs a lot of people, directly and indirectly. But she couldn't without all the other infrastructure that is in place from roads to education to provide those people she emplys. Yet, she is not willing to pay for it. When proposal for rule chnages are made to even up the playing field, she is in there pulling no stops to make sure those rules don't see the light of day, let alone get passed. So, too are her ilk; Palmer comes to mind, but all the faceless corporation heavyweights - ironically those owned by foreign investors.. The one thing is at least Gina's companies are Aussie owned. 

 

You can sit through the "well, she is playing by the rules, so blame the pollies as they can change the rules." Yes, in theory, but the backlash Gina and her ilk can unleash means pollies are very well constrained in what they can do. And the billionaires aren't the only ones. We had the BLF, and today we have the CMFEU (or whatever); Good ol' Jacinta Allan seems to be in their back pocket. Hard for her to change the rules to be more fair when her sponsors (and in her case, her husband) are calling shots behind the curtain. 

 

 

 

Edited 7 hours ago by Jerry_Atrick

[Jerry_Atrick]

But, it is OK to bag, but I also prefer to offer some solutions. 

 

This has previously been discussed on these forums. but a couple from memory:

• Ban political donations more than a de minimis amount from one controlling person/group (to make it hard to create 100 cmpanies and each of them contribute a seaparate donation to the limit). Maybe restrict it to living people rather than corporations.
• I would personally advocate a ban on lobbying groups and companies. If you have something to say to the government, it can be done through a public forum where everyone gets to hear it and scrutinise it. And contribute to it. 
• If not point 2, ban parliamentarians from lobbying or representing/being emeployed by firms in any official or real capacity that involves communication - directly or indirectly - with the government. Period. No cooling off periods, etc. 
• Aussie media regulator, ACMA, being given real teeth over both mainstream and social media, which must have independence, legally trained/accomplished people adjudicating, where they can impose real consequences/punishment for intentionally misleading the public. Those impacted can appeal through the court systems if they want. Of course, paid advertorials that are clearly labelled as such would be exempt, however, if the publisher reasonably had facts that rebuke such advertorials, then they have to state this prominently either before or after ther advertorial. 
• A new "offence" is intrroduced of high public misconduct (there is a public misconduct charge which is applying a damp wetted to the wrist very softly). For this, the bar should be recklessness in its criminal definition( foresaw the consequences that are likely to happen, didn't want them to happen, but went ahead with the action anyway) or intention. In other words simple incompetence or even negligence do not count. So, unless the polly clearly states the likely outcome of their policy, and it results in an absurd and large cost to Australians and the benefit promised doesn't materialise, they can be held liable, with the punishment being they and their controilling interests (so, for example, not hiding assets with a partner or company or whatever) can be held finalcially responsible (i.e. having to pay what they can back).
• The above offence would automatically include acting on prohibited lobbying. 

 

I am sure I could think of many more things, but I bet with the above, there would be far more transparent and hopefully logical and rational decisions made in the best interests of the country as a whole. 

[pmccarthy]

Digging holes in the ground? Mining today is one of the most high tech activities in industry. Knowing where to dig, how to dig and doing it safely involves all sorts of expertise.