Talking Politics

[Liverpool]

Australian Political History shows the party that controls the middle ground - bang on half way between the far left and the far right - wins government. Once won that government will stay in power until it becomes lazy arrogant or down right foolish - in other words government lose elections - oppositions do not win them.
Kimmy is trying to put a stake in the middle ground of politics and lay claim to it for Labor - this makes him look similar to Johnny.

Sorry Eight Ace, just because one does not care for the arts or classical music, one must be a buffoon !!
The people that worry me are the far left and right. If they cared less about themselves and there own agendas, and joined the mindless majority, it would all be love and kisses.
We all need to get over ourselves and our superiority complexes.

Exactly...agree with all that.
But because people are neither far-right, nor far-left, does that mean they are the "mindless populism" that has been suggested?
I think these people should be called the "silent majority" actually.
They aren't far-right racists or rednecks, who want anyone with a different religion or skin colour eradicated, circa Germany late-1930's.
But neither are they soft or naive enough to open the doors to let any Tom, *smile*, or Harry into the country whenever they feel like it, nor take political-correctness to the extreme, such as the far-left.
This "silent majority" is what will win either Johnny or Kimmy the election.
Like you said RemoteTiger, Kimmy won't win the election through his own policies, especially when he is starting to ride on the coat-tails of Johnny's policies, especially on immigration/citizenship.....Johnny will be the one to lose it, and may lose it purely and simply because people feel its time to give someone else a go, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[an_oxford_man]

Johnny will be the one to lose it, and may lose it purely and simply because people feel its time to give someone else a go, nothing more, nothing less.

Let's hope that people think that. Beazley lacks ability, but at least he isn't as dangerous as Howard.

 

[Liverpool]

Johnny will be the one to lose it, and may lose it purely and simply because people feel its time to give someone else a go, nothing more, nothing less.

Let's hope that people think that. Beazley lacks ability, but at least he isn't as dangerous as Howard.

I'd rather someone who isn't scared to make decisions, over someone who hasn't any ability to make a decision.

 

[RemoteTiger]

Johnny will be the one to lose it, and may lose it purely and simply because people feel its time to give someone else a go, nothing more, nothing less.

Let's hope that people think that. Beazley lacks ability, but at least he isn't as dangerous as Howard.

I'd rather someone who isn't scared to make decisions, over someone who hasn't any ability to make a decision.

IMO a Prime Minister is only as good as his aides around him and his cabinet ministers - so for mine Kimmy himself is not the worry for he is a most astute man and can make well thought out decisions - but its the people around him that make me concerned - with the exception of Rudd and maybe Gillard the rest are a bit of unknown quantities.

On the other hand Johnny through his perceived appeal to the electorate has kept the Liberal and National Party cabinet ministers in line - he has of course made them virtually untouchable through his complete disregard for ministerial accountability but none the less has kept them reasonably well disciplined to the party line. When Johnny goes those very same cabinet ministers will become factional warriors at the taxpayer's and Australia's expense. 

The Australian citizen is therefore caught between the devil and the deep blue sea - damed if you do and damed if you don't. The next 5 years will be very interesting in Federal Politics.

 

[eight ace]

Mindless populism was not referring to a group of people, Liverpool. It was referring to an approach taken by a particular individual towards a group of people. It is up to those people how they respond to such an approach. Generally, it seems they respond exactly as intended.

 

[tigersnake]

Johnny will be the one to lose it, and may lose it purely and simply because people feel its time to give someone else a go, nothing more, nothing less.

Let's hope that people think that. Beazley lacks ability, but at least he isn't as dangerous as Howard.

I'd rather someone who isn't scared to make decisions, over someone who hasn't any ability to make a decision.

so you're not that fazed by what the decision is, as long as its a decision? Nice logic, seductive, simple and pursuasive. You've convinced me.

 

[jb03]

Well there is a saying: "It's better to make a wrong decision than not make one at all." I think that's what L'pool was getting at.

 

[Curtiger]

Well there is a saying: "It's better to make a wrong decision than not make one at all." I think that's what L'pool was getting at.

Wrong decisions aren't a luxury afforded to Prime Ministers.

 

[jb03]

Well there is a saying: "It's better to make a wrong decision than not make one at all." I think that's what L'pool was getting at.

Wrong decisions aren't a luxury afforded to Prime Ministers.

But nor can you have one that doesn't make any.

 

[Curtiger]

Will we accept a bad decision over passivity?

 

[newyorktiger]

Depends on what the situation is... PM's can learn from their mistakes, just like everyone else.

 

[jb03]

Will we accept a bad decision over passivity?

Yes, quite possibly.

Depends on what the situation is... PM's can learn from their mistakes, just like everyone else.

Agree.

 

[Curtiger]

Will we accept a bad decision over passivity?

Yes, quite possibly.

For example...

 

[newyorktiger]

Obviously invading Iraq has been one bad decision after another - not invading was probably the correct option.

Carpet bombing Dresden in WWII was case where bad decision won over passivity.

 

[newyorktiger]

Will we accept a bad decision over passivity?

Hey Curtis:

I was reading an article about the British Labour Party's conference, and noted the quote from Tony Blair which is appropriate to recent discussion:

"The British people will, sometimes, forgive a wrong decision... but they will not forgive not deciding."

 

[Hayfever]

Will we accept a bad decision over passivity?

Hey Curtis:

I was reading an article about the British Labour Party's conference, and noted the quote from Tony Blair which is appropriate to recent discussion:

"The British people will, sometimes, forgive a wrong decision... but they will not forgive not deciding."

Has Blair decided when to retire yet....... or will he take another 11 months to make up his mind?

 

[Liverpool]

Will we accept a bad decision over passivity?

Hey Curtis:
I was reading an article about the British Labour Party's conference, and noted the quote from Tony Blair which is appropriate to recent discussion:
"The British people will, sometimes, forgive a wrong decision... but they will not forgive not deciding."

I remember I said something like that earlier in the thread:

I'd rather someone who isn't scared to make decisions, over someone who hasn't any ability to make a decision.

I might have to start getting those "Liverpool for PM" stickers printed after all... :hihi

 

[Chelsea]

Just thought I would resurrect this thread in the light of the latest scheme being put forward by the Government, in which they are going to encourage school-leavers to join the Defence Force for one year, but they would not be sent to a war zone. Apparently Kim Beazley is backing the idea on the proviso that the Government doesn't turn the plan into 'national service'. I think it could be a good idea, in that it would allow young people to perhaps 'try before you buy' the idea of enlisting in the Defence Force as a career, without actually signing up for years initially. It could also give those who are a little wayward, some needed guidance when they first leave school. Personally, I think it's a good idea, and would be interested to hear others' views. Hopefully we can have a pleasant discussion/debate on this subject.

 

[Legends of 2017]

In theory, I think it's a good idea. However I have reservations. It's ok for the government to say they won't be sent to war zones, but governments change and also governments change their mind. If a major war broke out, who would they look to, to bulk up numbers of troops? They would have a ready made force, granted, not battle ready, but closer to it than anyone they grab off the streets.
My boss, who is a pacifist, suggested something like the peace corp. Both ideas have merit. They both would be able to provide suitable training in some respect and give the young kids some guidance, as you suggest Chelsea.

 

[Chelsea]

In theory, I think it's a good idea. However I have reservations. It's ok for the government to say they won't be sent to war zones, but governments change and also governments change their mind. If a major war broke out, who would they look to, to bulk up numbers of troops? They would have a ready made force, granted, not battle ready, but closer to it than anyone they grab off the streets.
My boss, who is a pacifist, suggested something like the peace corp. Both ideas have merit. They both would be able to provide suitable training in some respect and give the young kids some guidance, as you suggest Chelsea.

I think that there would need to be some legislation put in place to prevent these young ones, who wish to take the Government up on the offer, from being sent to a war zone. I suppose if the Government get this idea up and running, there could very well be some participants who would stay on and make the Defence Force their career, so it could work well for both the Government and those who stay on. I just think, in the light of what's happening around the streets, with the bashings, drug abuse etc. there needs to be something such as this idea, to try and get young people off the streets, out of trouble, and doing something productive with their lives. This could be a good start.