-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Talking Politics
- Thread starter Legends of 2017
- Start date
I read the link.
I'm referring to the fact that Mr Howard claims control of both the upper and lower houses and he used that to his advantage pushing through policies that the majority of Australians disagree to. Not as extreme as Mr Rudd's proposals, but decision making is dictatorial in nature.
What's the big deal about a republic anyway? Monarchy is not much more than a different way of saying dictatorship.
Getting of the issue a little, I want to know what others think about one party having control of both houses. I don't believe that one party should ever be allowed control of both houses.
To effect this, I believe that we shouldn't vote for the upper and lower house separately, but instead whoever comes second in each seat should be elected to the upper house. Each party should only be allowed one candidate per seat. This will ensure that policies presented to the upper house will receive proper consideration and scrutiny.
I'm referring to the fact that Mr Howard claims control of both the upper and lower houses and he used that to his advantage pushing through policies that the majority of Australians disagree to. Not as extreme as Mr Rudd's proposals, but decision making is dictatorial in nature.
What's the big deal about a republic anyway? Monarchy is not much more than a different way of saying dictatorship.
Getting of the issue a little, I want to know what others think about one party having control of both houses. I don't believe that one party should ever be allowed control of both houses.
To effect this, I believe that we shouldn't vote for the upper and lower house separately, but instead whoever comes second in each seat should be elected to the upper house. Each party should only be allowed one candidate per seat. This will ensure that policies presented to the upper house will receive proper consideration and scrutiny.
OK Livers,
I read most of the thread you linked me to but I'm not trying to enter the republican debate. Personally, I'm a republican as I believe that Australia should have it's own head of state as opposed to the queen purely for the fact that I believe that the monarchy no longer serves its purpose as it ha limited influence over Australia and only survives due to traditional and historical reasons. In all the companies I've worked for, management has always said we need to work smarter, not harder. The monarchy IMO is simply unnecessary excess baggage that Australia should be able to do without. Whether or not we become a republic is not the point I'm trying to make here.
Posters have implied that Kevin Rudd will form a type of dictatorship if elected and you've further implied that if he makes Australia a republic (Which he can't do without a referendum), it will make matters worse.
Why will forming a republic make a dictatorship worse when a monarchy is itself a dictatorship (at least initially)?
More to the point, how would you feel if Kevin Rudd formed a true dictatorship, removed voting rights, started calling his relatives princes and princesses and handed power down from generation to generation to form a true Australian monarchy?
Would you still be a monarchist then?
I read most of the thread you linked me to but I'm not trying to enter the republican debate. Personally, I'm a republican as I believe that Australia should have it's own head of state as opposed to the queen purely for the fact that I believe that the monarchy no longer serves its purpose as it ha limited influence over Australia and only survives due to traditional and historical reasons. In all the companies I've worked for, management has always said we need to work smarter, not harder. The monarchy IMO is simply unnecessary excess baggage that Australia should be able to do without. Whether or not we become a republic is not the point I'm trying to make here.
Posters have implied that Kevin Rudd will form a type of dictatorship if elected and you've further implied that if he makes Australia a republic (Which he can't do without a referendum), it will make matters worse.
Why will forming a republic make a dictatorship worse when a monarchy is itself a dictatorship (at least initially)?
More to the point, how would you feel if Kevin Rudd formed a true dictatorship, removed voting rights, started calling his relatives princes and princesses and handed power down from generation to generation to form a true Australian monarchy?
Would you still be a monarchist then?
My in depth knowlede on the subject of the Monarchy isn't great but although it doesn't bother me that they still exist, I don't see what their actual purpose is. I'm pretty sure all legislation needs to be ratified by the Head of State but surley this is just a traditional process, rather than serving an actual purpose. This seems to be the case with many of their functions.
Even here in the UK, the Royal family are more about how many tabloid pages they fill, rather than what they do in terms of leading the country. No doubt they do a lot for the country as icons, in terms of tourism, working with charities, etc, but to have them as part of the Legislative and Governing processes seems outdated and unnecessary.
We've just had the Queen's Speech here, where in the House of Commons, she sets out the Government's agenda for the next year. Why does she need to do that? Surely the PM himself should be outlining his policies and manifestos. It's just a traditional occurrence that serves no real purpose.
And as far as Rudd being a dictator is concerned, it seems he's having a love affair with the term "bureaucracy". Because if he introduces all those departments mentioned in that article, the Australian Govt will be so smothered in bureaucratic *smile*, they won't be able to govern effectively.
Even here in the UK, the Royal family are more about how many tabloid pages they fill, rather than what they do in terms of leading the country. No doubt they do a lot for the country as icons, in terms of tourism, working with charities, etc, but to have them as part of the Legislative and Governing processes seems outdated and unnecessary.
We've just had the Queen's Speech here, where in the House of Commons, she sets out the Government's agenda for the next year. Why does she need to do that? Surely the PM himself should be outlining his policies and manifestos. It's just a traditional occurrence that serves no real purpose.
And as far as Rudd being a dictator is concerned, it seems he's having a love affair with the term "bureaucracy". Because if he introduces all those departments mentioned in that article, the Australian Govt will be so smothered in bureaucratic *smile*, they won't be able to govern effectively.
Rudd the dictator -
What the *smile* has Howard been doing over the last 11 years
War fighter jets that the department of defence don't want because they did not pass their testing - Howard without consultation of cabinet buys $6b worth of said war fighter jets from his mate Georgy Bush.
$10b for the Murray-Darling without consultation with the cabinet or The Treasury
Numerous advices from Australian intelligence agencies that Hussan did not have WMD - yet Howard marches us into Iraq with the yanks - prefering to believe the Yank intelligence than the Australian or British - guess what years later and the Yanks were wrong and the Aussies and Pommies were right.
Changing the role of the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) which once reported all Government Spending and Processes to the Head Of State's representative the Governor General - Under Howard the ANAO now reports directly to the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet so if there is anything bad in a particular report it can be squashed or manipulated for general consumption.
There are four - just off the top of my head - that dictator Howard has completed - I'm sure if I did some homework there would be many many more. Howard has bastardised the Westminster Parliamentary System like no other Prime Minister previously - believe the media if you like but this Howard is a true megalomaniac........................
What the *smile* has Howard been doing over the last 11 years
War fighter jets that the department of defence don't want because they did not pass their testing - Howard without consultation of cabinet buys $6b worth of said war fighter jets from his mate Georgy Bush.
$10b for the Murray-Darling without consultation with the cabinet or The Treasury
Numerous advices from Australian intelligence agencies that Hussan did not have WMD - yet Howard marches us into Iraq with the yanks - prefering to believe the Yank intelligence than the Australian or British - guess what years later and the Yanks were wrong and the Aussies and Pommies were right.
Changing the role of the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) which once reported all Government Spending and Processes to the Head Of State's representative the Governor General - Under Howard the ANAO now reports directly to the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet so if there is anything bad in a particular report it can be squashed or manipulated for general consumption.
There are four - just off the top of my head - that dictator Howard has completed - I'm sure if I did some homework there would be many many more. Howard has bastardised the Westminster Parliamentary System like no other Prime Minister previously - believe the media if you like but this Howard is a true megalomaniac........................
1eyedtiger said:
The ALP has already equalled, matched, or maybe even surpassed the promised spending of the Libs int his election campaign and they want to still spend money on worthless, futile, and unneeded referendums for a republic.
A republic should be well down on the priority list at the moment.
The ALP call for a referendum (again!) reminds me of The Simpsons....you know the one where Bart and Lisa want to go to Mt.Splashmore:
Bart+Lisa: Will you take us to Mt. Splashmore?
Homer: No!
[as Homer watches television with a beer in his hand]
Bart+Lisa: Will you take us to Mt. Splashmore?
Homer: No.
Bart+Lisa: Will you take us to Mt. Splashmore?
Homer: No.
[as Homer takes a shower]
Bart+Lisa: Will you take us to Mt. Splashmore?
Homer: No!!
Bart+Lisa: Will you take us to Mt. Splashmore?
Homer: NO!!!!
[as Homer tries to get some sleep]
Bart+Lisa: Will you take us to Mt. Splashmore?
Homer: NO!!!!!!
Bart+Lisa: Will you take us to Mt. Splashmore?
Homer: NO!!!!!!!!
Bart+Lisa: Will you take us to Mt. Splashmore?
Homer: NOOO!!
Bart+Lisa: Will you take us to Mt. Splashmore?
Homer: NOOOOO!!!
[Marge pulls her pillow over her head]
If I take you will you two SHUT UP AND QUIT BUGGING ME!
Bart: Yeah!
Lisa: Of course!
Bart: Well?
Bart+Lisa: Will you take us to Mt. Splashmore?
Homer: Yes!
Bart+Lisa Thanks, dad!
I guess if you keep having referendums and keep bugging the public, sooner or later you'll get the answer you desire.
1eyedtiger said:
What do you mean, 'at least initially'?
1-eyed....Rudd (or anyone for that matter) can't just 'manufacture' a monarchy.
The current monarchy we have has endured centuries...check this out:
http://www.royal.gov.uk/files/pdf/European%20monarchs%20family%20tree.pdf
It's not like the monarchy is some Pom family who just decided one day to be a King or Queen...it is something that has been widereaching for many years.
No one 'votes' on who is going to be King or Queen or Prince.
Finally, and the most important in your suggestion about Rudd starting a monarchy is that with the current monarchy we have, the Queen (with the Governor-General as Head of State)....BUT an elected parliament to make legislation.
What your proposal suggests is that Rudd would not only be the new Australian monarch, but be in a position to make decisions for this country as well....and that would be a very dangerous mix, and what a true dictatorship is all about.
What we currently have is far from a dictatorship.
RemoteTiger said:
Get off the high horse Remote.
If it was an ALP government who had the power across the board, then we wouldn't be hearing a peep from you.
RemoteTiger said:
If you are talking about the Super-Hornets.....then don't let an odd one or two air-force people interviewed on the ABC sway you too much.
The Super-Hornet is still a very good aircraft and has been vindicated by other air-force personnel.
Interested on your take of the Collins-class sub that the ALP spent billions on, at the expense of spending money on the Army.
Which do you think we are using more at the moment.....the Army, in places like Afghanistan and East Timor? or a few dud subs?
RemoteTiger said:
From one of my earlier posts:
ME TOO 3
$10b Murray-Darling Basin takeover saying "We have offered the PM on many occasions our bi-partisan support"
So much for meglomania...
Six Pack said:
Elmer said:
Talking of Americans....and more specifically, spin-doctoring Americans...thought a few of you might be interested in the following article.
At least we know where he gets his manufactured (and according to Garrett, it will change anyway once elected) economic conservative, education revolution, and working families slogans from:
Rudd stars, and swipes slogan
November 09, 2007 12:00am
KEVIN Rudd has been chanting the mantra of "working families" hundreds of times during the election campaign.
It is a technique devised by US campaign guru Vic Fingerhut.
The three-decade veteran has worked for the US Democrats, the Canadian Labor Congress and the Canadian New Democratic Party, which also used "working families" in their campaign slogans.
The Washington-based political guru has played a major role in the ACTU's anti-WorkChoices campaign. The peak union organisation first brought the pollster out to Australia in mid-2005 to devise its communications strategy.
Mr Fingerhut has returned to provide political strategy advice at least twice since, including as recently as July.
But Mr Fingerhut's fingerprints appear to be all over not only the ACTU's strategy, but Mr Rudd's campaign as well.
In one doorstop in Brisbane earlier this week, Mr Rudd used the phrase "working families" 20 times in one media doorstop interview, and over the course of five days another 60 times.
And in one answer during a Ten Network interview yesterday, Mr Rudd' repeated the phrase five times.
The hired US political gun also advised big US tobacco companies on how to fight government laws intended to restrict their activities.
Under that particular strategy, Mr Fingerhut argued that scientists and other "elites" were tampering with the rights of workers to smoke.
Mr Fingerhut was the brains behind the presidential campaigns of Democrat Michael Dukakis and Canadian New Democratic Party leader Jack Layton.
Both men led parties that have been clients of Mr Fingerhut.
Mr Layton, who leads the Canadian equivalent of the ALP, was using the "working families" mantra in a speech as recently as last month.
The American pollster argues that politicians can't just talk about policies and economics, they have to relate these issues to peoples' lives.
He says using the phrase "working families" gives people something they can all readily identify with.
Mr Fingerhut was engaged to run the ACTU's communications strategy through a New South Wales company known as Essential Media Communications, which has also been the ACTU's pollster.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22726453-662,00.html
