Talking Politics

[Six Pack]

i dunno Livers, i reckon it's sending mixed messages to the electorate. Bloody republicans!

 

[t-rob]

Debacle? :rofl
Why is it a debacle?

So debacle?
I think not.

You have to remember that perception is greater than reality.

It looks bad to the general public who are already convinced that Howard's end is nigh.

 

[Six Pack]

i agree, perception is everything.

 

[Liverpool]

i dunno Livers, i reckon it's sending mixed messages to the electorate.

Turnbull putting forward reasons to sign Kyoto happened 6 weeks ago apparently.
A decision was made by Cabinet not to sign Kyoto and last week in the debate, Howard clearly stated that they would not sign Kyoto due to the fact that two of the largest emitters of greenhouse pollution (USA and China) have not signed it, therefore our small amount of emissions weren't going to make any difference to the actual overall climate, however by signing this Kyoto agreement, we would suffer economically as a result instead.

I don't know what the mixed message is.
It's not the Government's fault that the 'Finacial Review' have decided to run with something that is old news now and are trying to make a big story out of it to sell papers.

 

[Six Pack]

i dunno Livers, i reckon it's sending mixed messages to the electorate.

Turnbull putting forward reasons to sign Kyoto happened 6 weeks ago apparently.
A decision was made by Cabinet not to sign Kyoto and last week in the debate, Howard clearly stated that they would not sign Kyoto due to the fact that two of the largest emitters of greenhouse pollution (USA and China) have not signed it, therefore our small amount of emissions weren't going to make any difference to the actual overall climate, however by signing this Kyoto agreement, we would suffer economically as a result instead.

I don't know what the mixed message is.
It's not the Government's fault that the 'Finacial Review' have decided to run with something that is old news now and are trying to make a big story out of it to sell papers.

if you were in Turnbull's electorate, Waverley i think it is, like around Bondi, would you vote for him, knowing he would like to sign Kyoto?

 

[Liverpool]

if you were in Turnbull's electorate, Waverley i think it is, like around Bondi, would you vote for him, knowing he would like to sign Kyoto?

Yes, because I am voting for the party's policies and he is part of that team.
Just because he might have a personal opinion that differs to the party is irrelevant because he is representing the party, not himself.

 

[Six Pack]

if you were in Turnbull's electorate, Waverley i think it is, like around Bondi, would you vote for him, knowing he would like to sign Kyoto?

Yes, because I am voting for the party's policies and he is part of that team.
Just because he might have a personal opinion that differs to the party is irrelevant because he is representing the party, not himself.

folowing that logic then, if yr local candidate was a shocker, you would still vote for them cos they are part of the party u prefer?

 

[Six Pack]

Just because he might have a personal opinion that differs to the party is irrelevant because he is representing the party, not himself.

he should be representing his/her electorate, surely?

 

[Liverpool]

folowing that logic then, if yr local candidate was a shocker, you would still vote for them cos they are part of the party u prefer?

Yes....of course...aren't we all supposed to be 'sacrificing something to help others'? :hihi

Seriously....if the party has good policies then that will flow down to a local level anyway, regardless of whether the candidate is a 'top bloke' or not.

he should be representing his/her electorate, surely?

Yes, his job is to listen to the electorate but also to try and convey his party's polices and ideas to his supporters and people of his community.
Sort of like a sales-rep for a company.
They listen to their customer's complaints and concerns and help as best they can, but they still abide by their company's policies and try to sell the company's goods/services, as well as try to win new customers.

 

[Six Pack]

So yr concept of democracy is a trickle down thing from the top, rather than a groundswell movement from below. That surprises me a little bit, livers.

 

[Liverpool]

So yr concept of democracy is a trickle down thing from the top, rather than a groundswell movement from below. That surprises me a little bit, livers.

Why does that surprise you SixPack?

 

[barty boy]

Just out of interest here,are there many other countries in the world that have government terms of only 3 years.seems 3 years is not long enough to implement and see the fruits of government policy.

 

[Six Pack]

So yr concept of democracy is a trickle down thing from the top, rather than a groundswell movement from below. That surprises me a little bit, livers.

Why does that surprise you SixPack?

it surprises me because i thought you were a bit more independent minded than that.

 

[Liverpool]

Just out of interest here,are there many other countries in the world that have government terms of only 3 years.seems 3 years is not long enough to implement and see the fruits of government policy.

It's plenty of time Barty.
Look at Rudd.....he has agreed with so much of the Government, then surely he won't have much to change once he gets in anyway....
Three years should be plenty of time to throw a signature on a piece of paper with "Kyoto Agreement" as the title...get his mug on TV and say "sorry' to the Aborigines...duck down to Harvey Norman and buy some laptops for schoolkids to cover his 'education revolution'....throw WorkChoices in the bin and then like any good leader, 'delegate' work to others around him, like letting the unions run the worklplaces. That should give him time to have a whine about the Asians using the death penalty.
3 years? *pfffft*
He should have it all covered within a week.... :rofl

Sorry barty....I couldn't help myself...

it surprises me because i thought you were a bit more independent minded than that.

You can be independently minded as much as you like...but at the end of the day, you can only control what YOU can control.
Even local candidates in the party don't have much influence over what course of action a party takes.
Therefore, I vote for whatever party has more policies and ideas that are going to affect me, my family, and my country in general.

 

[Six Pack]

Therefore, I vote for whatever party has more policies and ideas that are going to affect me, my family, and my country in general.

in that order?

 

[1eyedtiger]

You can be independently minded as much as you like...but at the end of the day, you can only control what YOU can control.
Even local candidates in the party don't have much influence over what course of action a party takes.
Therefore, I vote for whatever party has more policies and ideas that are going to affect me, my family, and my country in general.

I understand your view Livers and that you are only telling it as it is, but it's not in the spirit of what democracy truly is. IMO, the major parties have the right the propose it's preferred policies, but when it comes time to vote on major issues, each elected member should vote according to the wishes of his/her electorate. If the vote goes against the party policy, the leader should be man enough to stand up and acknowledge the electorate's disapproval regarding the policy in question.

This shouldn't be compared to a private business where investors have put up their own money and therefore should control the business exclusively. Australia is funded and owned by all citizens and therefore all citizens should get to have a say.

One example, when Howard sold Telstra, he said, he had heard the electorate's view against selling Telstra but basically tough luck, he was selling it anyway.

So much for democracy.

 

[Six Pack]

You can be independently minded as much as you like...but at the end of the day, you can only control what YOU can control.
Even local candidates in the party don't have much influence over what course of action a party takes.
Therefore, I vote for whatever party has more policies and ideas that are going to affect me, my family, and my country in general.

I understand your view Livers and that you are only telling it as it is, but it's not in the spirit of what democracy truly is. IMO, the major parties have the right the propose it's preferred policies, but when it comes time to vote on major issues, each elected member should vote according to the wishes of his/her electorate. If the vote goes against the party policy, the leader should be man enough to stand up and acknowledge the electorate's disapproval regarding the policy in question.

This shouldn't be compared to a private business where investors have put up their own money and therefore should control the business exclusively. Australia is funded and owned by all citizens and therefore all citizens should get to have a say.

One example, when Howard sold Telstra, he said, he had heard the electorate's view against selling Telstra but basically tough luck, he was selling it anyway.

So much for democracy.

spot on! :clap

 

[Liverpool]

Therefore, I vote for whatever party has more policies and ideas that are going to affect me, my family, and my country in general.

in that order?

Depends what the policy is.

 

[Six Pack]

You could be like Family First, Livers, and release a Liverpool Impact Statement as each new policy is announced.

 

[Six Pack]

Livers, you are the only person I know who has drawn a link between water shortages and immigration levels. maybe this new announcement will help ease yr troubled mind:

http://abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/10/28/2072504.htm?section=justin