[LINK] selling the furniture-- in Detroit

[Dr Bob Jansen]

I've often thought it would be interesting to legislate to make political promises binding. Say, after the first term, if the party in power has not met met all it promises, fine them the financial value of their unmet promises. I know, someone will argue that the opposition blocked the meeting of the promise but I'm sure we can come up with some way to negate that excuse.

I would have thought any party would be more careful before making such a promise if they stand the chance of being fined to the tune of a value that could bankrupt the party involved. Maybe the Public could take then to court in a class action? That would also obviate the notion of core and non core promises, after all a promise to the people is a promise. Wonder what the laws of contract are to say about this?

Just a thought

Bobj

Dr Bob Jansen
Turtle Lane Studios
PO Box 26 Erskineville NSW 2043 Australia
Ph: +61 414 297 448
Skype: bobjtls
http://www.turtlelane.com.au


> On 27 Dec 2013, at 17:13, "Frank O'Connor" <francisoconnor3 at bigpond.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 27 Dec 2013, at 5:13 pm, Richard Archer <rha at juggernaut.com.au> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 27/12/13 3:22 PM, Frank O'Connor wrote:
>>> "Nothing to see here, folks. Move Along. Move Along."
>> 
>> 
>> So what can "we" realistically do about this sorry state of affairs?
>> 
>> ..
> 
> "Move along, move along."          :)
> 
> OK, a few things I can think of pretty well perpetuate the situation where the major parties (and history shows that they are all equally guilty of this destructive penchant to privatise the family jewellery) control over matters political is entrenched.
> 
> The fact that a large proportion of the voting public is either disenchanted, or has given up, has a number of indicators such as:
> 
> # The number of single issue and minor party loons that were elected to the Senate in the last election, despite the parties' controls over process, an onerous preferential voting system and the ease with which people could simply just put one number on the ballot to follow a particular party line, rather than laboriously fill out the puppies numbering each separate candidate which so many obviously did.
> 
> # The extremely low voter registration figures amongst the young. They see it as a rigged game that they can't be bothered playing given that the result is largely predetermined, and the few Masters of the Universe in the tired old parties have selected the candidates anyway.
> 
> # The recent 'entitlements' furore when our 'political masters' got caught with their hands in the pot yet again. The general public was quite irate about this on a number of fronts.
> 
> # The unedifying negativity, and appeals to the lowest common denominator, of the last few years that looks like continuing in the current parliament is starting to wear ... as evidenced by the recent polls.
> 
> In short, Joe and Josephine Public currently have less tolerance for leaders, politicians and the major parties generally than at any time in the last 50 years. They're sick of them. Sick of the broken promises, sick of the weasel words, sick of the duplicity and behind-the-scenes manoeuvring, sick of power without purpose, sick of being handed the short end of the stick time and time and time again, sick of lack of value for their taxes ... but also sick of always increasing 'user-pays' tariffs, sick of rent seekers and insurers and utilities constantly upping their charges and fees by many times that of inflation (surely an indicator of enterprise inefficiency) and being handed a day pass every time by politicians for doing so (probably because of the monetary support the major parties get from these 'industries'), sick of executive remuneration and greed, sick of watching the government support for banking and financial screw ups to the exclusion of the real victims, sick!
>  of the whole damn thing.
> 
> But we pay these parasitic turkeys $50 million a year just to keep their party apparatus's (apparati?) going. We exempt these two faced turkeys from legal liability and laws that all the rest of us are subject to. (e.g. Politicians aren't bound by the Privacy Act, by 'do not call', by the laws of libel and defamation for what they say in Parliament, by any number of other Acts that govern dealings between the rest of us.) Dishonest politicians can lie, cheat, steal, take funds corruptly and put them to their own use, and get off simply by using the Minchin Protocol ('Oops ... Sorry") 
> 
> Well, unless your name is Peter Slipper.       :)
> 
> Corrupt politicians and parties can hide illegal donations and donors away in their books, relatively confident that nobody is gonna audit the books. Politicians can use trusts and other entities to supposedly 'divest themselves' of assets and commercial interests that might provide a conflict of interest (and anybody who believes that this would remove the conflict of interest probably also believes in the fairies at the bottom of the garden ... a legal device does not remove the conflict). And nobody can tell me that the government's approval of Clive Palmer's Queensland coal mines wasn't a tad influenced by the current Senate balance.
> 
> Now, given that there's likely to be a new Senate election in WA after the abortive recount in September, I'd suggest that our politicians would be a tad nervous about the result, given what happened in the Senate in the rest of Australia last September, and given what the polls are currently telling us about the current lot (both major parties are currently on the nose) after 110 days of the new government. I mean, a Senate which supposedly represents the people and states, rather than the parties, is the last thing that either the LNP or Labor want to see. I think guys like Matthias Cormann (our current Finance Supremo) will be up for re-election ... I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure he was up for re-election in the last election. Irrespective of that, getting a grass roots campaign going at a time when the balance in the Senate is sitting on such a knife edge may be a way to grab their attention, and let them know we are not going to tolerate 'more of the same'.
> 
> So, if it was me ... I'd attack the politicians and the major parties in WA ... in the media, online, outside their offices, and ask who the politicians represent ... the major parties and those big donors who support them, or the people. And if there is ANY doubt whether or not they do support the people (specifically their Senate electorate) then voters should be encouraged to vote for the local independents and loons rather than the major parties. At least then they 'may' elect someone who truly represents them.
> 
> I'd work to see off the public funding for the parties that is basically restricted to the majors and entrenches the two party structure in a permanent situation, as well as various privileges and entitlements that additionally accrue to the major parties. Make equal public funding available to all candidates at the election ... to give everyone a voice rather than close it off. I'd look at making preferential voting simpler and less prone to mistake - e.g. only vote for the first 3 or 5 preferences rather than all of them. For sitting members, I'd make their remuneration subject to certain performance indicators ... there's been no indication that increasing the remuneration has resulted in a better class of politician, so maybe decreasing it will do the trick. I'd limit the number of consecutive terms a politician could serve ... perennial bench sitters serve the party and its apparatchicks rather than the people, good government and good policymaking.
> 
> Now each and every one of those tactics is debatable, as it should be .... but something has to be done to stop the erosion of our infrastructure, assets, lifestyle and standard of living as governments 'sell of off the farm' to cater to current cash demands necessitated by the politics of selfishness that's been endemic for the last 25 years.  Telstra, Qantas, CSL and the like are always pointed to as the success stories (although Qantas isn't much talked about nowadays, and NOBODY mentions the Telstra Second Tranche) but each of these enterprises was making good money BEFORE they were sold and hence a paying a handsome annual dividend to the government (which meant we paid commensurately less tax). Ditto for the privatised power and utility infrastructure across Australia. 
> 
> Now you think there'd be some rule that only if the enterprise in question is making a loss would it be a candidate for a sale as a private concern ... but our politicians seem to think that the buyer needs to be handed a golden goose and the public derived of  dependable revenue stream. Personally, I'd like to see the public rather than the buyer as central to the government's concerns.
> 
> The point is that the public has to have the consequences of the duplicities and greed and self interest and attempts to buy their votes, laid out for them. OK, you go along with this, your gas bills will go through the roof two or three years down the track. You vote for this clown, and the water quality will drop off in a couple of years. Elect Ben ... and the beach down the road will be permanently off limits from June next year. Vote for this guy, and your phone and Internet will choke up in 10 years whilst you pay more for them. Elect Electric Eric, and your local power supply will get more flakey and expensive. Use the same simplistic methods of getting your negative message across as have proven so successful in the past.
> 
> I guess what I'm saying is that if we sit back and let it happen, it'll all get sold out from under us and one day we'll all wake up as permanent tenants in what used to be our home. We'll have dispossessed ourselves, simply by not holding the parties and politicians responsible for their actions. To my mind, politicians are much more likely to do the right thing when they're nervous and when they are kept in a constant state of nervousness. That's why it's a good thing to change governments regularly. 
> 
> As for us, we should also take the long view .... but as I said in my original gripe, we baby boomers don't seem to have much of a talent for that. We're more about indulging ourselves, instant gratification, short attention spans, and looking after Number 1 ...
> 
> Which is why I still reckon we should get out of the way of the following generations now ... they at least have more motivation to fix the situation. Whether they have the ability and tenacity remains to be seen.
> _______________________________________________
> Link mailing list
> Link at mailman.anu.edu.au
> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link