Then @TJ_Hooker for you... @CaloNord I apologise if I've come across strong. After reading more of the thread. You are more after what politicians are like.
As pointed out. I picked up on one small part of a post. And ranted like a politician at question time...
Anyway... My Dad became a local politician. He signed up to stop a factory pouring out Aluminium oxides or something, from its chimney stack. Everybody was angry with it as well. Got the factory to install scrubbers. This was quite easy as press coverage came in and a report on midlands today about pollution. A possible link to cancers in the area. Yep. Pressure was applied and the stack pumps out mostly water vapour now. Dad continued having lots of fun with things like arguing about fence boundaries. Who tidies the park and stuff. Then... He left politics... So... I have a biased view... damn...
O Franklin Delano Roosevelt announced "bold, persistent experimentation" as part of his presidency. They tried new things, kept them if they worked and admitted and cancelled them if they didn't. There's a reason he's the second most popular US President of all time.
Well he also oversaw the longest economic depression in the history of the nation... then somehow got credit for ending it as if it were by nature destined to last forever. His popularity is mostly due to being the president in a time of great troubles in which his nation managed to end up on top.
@Anduin nah it's no problem mate I don't mind at all. Whenever you start a thread like this, or any other really, it's kinda like sticking your head on the block a bit. I find it insightful to get a look into the lives of people that don't live where I do. I just choose politics as a good common thread everyone shares.
I also feel that Australian schools lack a decent education about politics to begin with. I mean, I attended high school here, we did units on world politics, mainly America but none on local, state and federal. Nothing on the various parties, what they stand for, who represents them, their leanings or anything like that. The name "Liberal Party" may well be misleading to many people who don't know anything else about them. It implies some form of change or Liberal open minded leanings when they are in fact right wing conservatives.
I also agree with both @Corvino and @NaturalBornKieler that we need more politicians with experience in their fields. Our defence minister, David Johnston was a lawyer for mining companies in Western Australia. He has no experience what so ever with what it takes to effectively run the ADF. However our current Governor-General Sir Peter Cosgrove is an experienced Army general, former Chief of the Defence forces and Chief of the Army with 4 decades of experience. I served in the RAAF myself and would much rather have Cosgrove as defence minister...
But I also see where @NaturalBornKieler is coming from. Half of our politicians sleep through their time in the house. If we cut their pay and conditions or at least made them work for it they probably wouldn't do it anymore. Don't get me wrong I'd love to do it but I doubt I have the qualifications and I HIGHLY doubt I'd ever convince anyone I wasn't a twat!
Can't we make a technocracy. People give a problem and post it on the net. People give a range of solutions to it and post them . The people then all get a vote via the Internet... It will completely disfranchise those without an internet connection... but first law is...Give everyone the internet. End of politicians. Everyone becomes a politician. Amen (actually better keep religion out of it) Sorted.
This works only until enough trolls get together and start out-voting those of us who are not trolls, either through sheer numbers or via some underhanded digital prestidigitation.
But haven't you read the Internet Constitution?
Typing with caps lock on apparently counts as two votes
Didn't 4Chan do something like that to a band? They had a vote on their website for their next gig and 4Chan sent them so many votes for some place in the middle of nowhere... To many people turn into raging idiots behind their computer screens.
I love that idea though, the only thing I can't figure out is an effective way to stop mass trolling. With more people then ever connected to the internet and willing to use it it's a great idea if we could just figure out a way to make it viable. o.O
One thing that could help politics but doesn't seem to be much used is "Evidence-Based Decision Making". It gets used a lot in scientific, medical and business projects but doesn't seem to have had much of an effect on the policies of most governments. Basically you do limited trials of policies to see in practice what works.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt announced "bold, persistent experimentation" as part of his presidency. They tried new things, kept them if they worked and admitted and cancelled them if they didn't. There's a reason he's the second most popular US President of all time.
Because he is smarter and better at explaining things than I am, I suggest reading some of Ben Goldacre's articles on it.
The problem with politics is that it's based on ideology, not results. You either believe in big or small government. You believe in regulation or Laissez-faire, global warming or coal, conservative or liberal, right or left, hippie communist scum or republican(:P), I could go on. Why? Because that's what you believe. You get your truth, I get mine. You can do that on some things, but not everything. Some things have to be either true or false. You can't just ignore actual stuff. Global warming is either real or not. Vaccines either cause a host of vaguely defined but definitely very bad things in your children or they don't(they don't).
Economics can't run that way either. You can't set the minimum wage on principle. You experiment and see what gets the best result. You raise it in some places, keep it low in others. If the economy crashes and a host of small businesses close their doors in the places you raised it, then you keep it low. If the workforce goes on strike In the places you kept it low and the general welfare of the lower class decreases then you raise it. You don't just pick the one you like better, you find out which one works. It's not like one is inherently better than the other, it's just the one that works and the one that doesn't.
If science ran the same way government did then we would have scientists divided and arguing over weather or not atoms should be real. Cause, ya'know, we get to decide.
*sigh*
One the other hand, it is fun to watch. I do love me some Herman Cain. (I guess that makes me a bad person?)
Mmmm pizzzza... *drooling* Oh question time makes me sick. Liberals just have four answers to everything and they just repeat it every time. It's infuriating. "Stop the boats!" Can't have those dirty terrorist refugees getting in here can we?! Oh GOD no.
Hahahaha! Yes well there is that! Unfortunately for me my ancestors would be less fortunate I probably wouldn't exist Some might like that though... Never the less! World Wars aren't good for much. It's hard to get your head around the sheer scale of destruction and death the human race is capable of when we put our minds to it. Nothing compared to what could be achieved by a modern total war... Hopefully sanity will prevail. The cold war came alarmingly close many times but never quite got there. Would be so perfect if we could just get along as a race. We're capable of SO much more then what we currently have.
Our defence minister, David Johnston was a lawyer for mining companies in Western Australia.
I can beat that. Czech defence minister is an actor. He is simply proffesionally acting being defence minister. Surprisingly (or not so much), he is not worse than other ministers in the government.
@Pecca Hahaha oh good lord. Well hopefully he can act his way out of danger Hahaha maybe we should turn this into a weirdest minister competition... I'll have to poke through the rest of the Liberal cabinet after dinner... :P Must be something interesting in there!
I guess I should mention that I consider myself quite far to the left. I believe it is okay for people to know where Im coming from (I dont believe in objective judgement in politics), also I believe people on this forum are able to focus on the content of what Im saying - and not on this wrapping
Anyway, Norway has had one of the most radical governments in Europe the last eight years - which has been pretty good, of course the major part of the coalition government has been social democrats and the socialist party has whittled away because people dont seem to udnerstand why a 5% party cannot dictate the policies over a 35% party. I has been good because the government has generally fought social dumping, enforced good abor laws and limited the increasing use of temporary employment - even though the use of temporary workers have increased overall. The most important failure of this government in my eyes is that they have done nothing to change our oil-driven economy, as a small country we have a huge problem in that nearly everybody who is any good at maths works in the oil industry, which we will only have for a limited time. Thats not touching on the envrionmntal issues connected with one-sided investments in oil manufacturing.
The new government is right leaning (moderate-right, light blue party & and a darker blue party, formerly slighly racist, now mostly liberitarian and business-owner-friendly). They havent enacted much policy yet, but as a educator I am concerned about increased privatization of schools (very hard to reverse) as well as the economic policies. Normal Norwegian households have a very healthy economy, to decrease taxes further for people who already have two cabins and two cars and five flatscreens can be problematic, this money is needed in the health and education sector. Most Norwegians use the public health service, I am afraid that over time developments will udnermine the public health/education sector - instead of making public schools and hospitals better for everyone people will increasingly pay to get better/faster service, which in turn will decrease the funding/the will to fund these sectors. I think those are the most important challenges in Norway right now. Others might relate.
Oh yes, we can relate! The Labor government which was in power here for the last 10ish years was left and did a fairly good job keeping the economy a float during the global financial crisis, they increased government spending and issued cash stimulus packages to get people out and spending. As such we came through that relativity unscathed in comparison to other developed countries. They understood that to keep it going they had to be willing to get into debt at the time and pay it off later. That being said they didn't get into any extreme amount of debt, we still have a AAA credit rating from several major creditors.
The Liberals, who are in power now are much more right wing then the former Labor party. They claim to be "Bringing the budget back under control". Not that there was a problem there anyway but they're using it as an excuse to sell government assets, reduce the pension, increase the retirement age, cut government spending on schools, secondary education and university as well as scrapping the carbon reduction scheme. They don't believe in climate change and as such see no reason to do anything about it. They even scrapped the job of Minister for the environment.
They seem to think that having a budget in surplus is more useful then using it for the betterment of the country. What use is a massive bank balance if you won't do anything useful with it?
I do see the issues with oil-centric economies, and there are many of them. You're investing heavily into a resource that is in no way going to last forever. Once it runs out, where are your investments now?
@CaloNord Yeah, sounds familiar To be fair, I am a bit proud with how Norway has tackled the oil economy up to this point, nationalizing it and making sure the competence has stayed in the country rather than contracting in (underpaid) foreign companies, also most direct taxation from the oil industry does *not* go into the budget, but into a savings fund (we only use approximately 4% of the income). For many countries the oil is more of a blessing than a curse - it has been a blessing up until now because we havent turned into spoiled Quatarians (no offence intended), but it might not stay that way for long.
Anyway, interesting about the Environment minister - I am actually a bit torn on that, I think perhaps an environment minister actually should be removed, because the really important part in saving the environment is in the hands of the industry and energy minister. Id rather have a environmentalist energy/industry minister than a powerless environmental minister - my impression is that environment ministers at most can create National Parks :P
Yes. I'm all for nationalization! I think it's great the state used to own things like railways and ports. They don't anymore. Apparently they needed money so they sold everything we used to own. Now Queensland Rail for example belongs to the Chinese.
I refer you to an incident in New Zealand, the government sold New Zealand Rail to Toll, Toll didn't bother to maintain it or run it properly, the government was forced to buy it back. Yes I'd had the same thought! It's interesting, their job used to be more harassing the other ministers on enviromental matters and trying to keep them working towards that goal. I fear with that roll gone and with no one really caring anymore they will just proceed all speed ahead with whatever witless wonder they come up with next.
They also tried and fail to get a huge amount of heritage listed parks and forests in Tasmania de-registered so they could be cut down and turned into wood pulp. Not to mention they want to dredge parts of/very close to the great barrier reef. It's in the way of ships. So it has to go. :P
I'm not a tree hugging hippy type but I do think we have to treat this planet responsibly. It's our home, not just one nations home, not just the E.U. or the U.S. but for the entire race. What do we do if we manage to ruin the delicate balance beyond our ability to repair...?
@Squire The rise of UKIP (27% of the vote in the most recent local elections) is a little worrying really. Their elected Members of European Parliament have some of the worst attendance records and highest expenses claims of any MEPs, and a record of alliances with Far-Right parties throughout Europe. Their party rhetoric carefully tiptoes along the tightrope of being not-quite-racist (just very, very anti-immigrant) as well.
Their main selling points are not being one of the main political parties and their mistrust of Europe. That's all they've got really. Which either says there are a lot of xenophobes in the UK who got rallied to vote, or that the main political parties have really disenfranchised everyone else.
Can't we make a technocracy. People give a problem and post it on the net. People give a range of solutions to it and post them . The people then all get a vote via the Internet... It will completely disfranchise those without an internet connection... but first law is...Give everyone the internet. End of politicians. Everyone becomes a politician. Amen (actually better keep religion out of it) Sorted.
This works only until enough trolls get together and start out-voting those of us who are not trolls, either through sheer numbers or via some underhanded digital prestidigitation.
Underhanded digital prestidigitation have become my favourite three word summerisation of the week...
@Corvino UKIPs only selling point is to give the people the vote to leave the E.U. The lack of attendance is because they don't have a clue what the party line is on so many issues that they literally cannot sing from the same song sheet; meaning that when constituents come to have a chat, about the same thing in different boroughs, you can expect two completely (sometimes mindboggling according to the press) answers. As for highest expenses, they are buying there second homes, so need to pay the deposit on the house... Why can't they put 'em all in a block of flats next door to Westminster so they can also save on transport fees... Anyway... dodge... sounds all dodge... (Anduin would like to say he has not checked his sources, just read em somewhere once, and cannot be arsed to read em up again, because no one has wikied up politician expenditures yet...)
Anyway I am worried about economic and national inefficiencies literally crippling Britian, we have more layers of govermental duvet that I predict everyone will die in the UK from cripplinging over leadership.
We have: Local Government Then: National assemblies (if you live in Scotland, Wales or Ireland, if you live in Engalnd you can go screw yourself... Ontop of that we have: Westminster... National Government or the UK Government. Ontop of this and should be mentioned as they add to the tax burden we have: The Royals. Who actually do a bit of pomp and generally do work and useful stuff. HOW DID IT COME TO THIS, WHY IS MOI, THE PEASANTRY, SAYING THE ROYALS ARE DOING WORK AND THE POLITICIANS ARE DOING SWEET F.ootball A.ssociation... And then: European crap. Who have taken most of the powers from westminster anyway, thats why you only see stuff about education and power generation (the electrical kind) being banded about by politicians.
Under all those politicians... And I have not even mentioned the courts that are the stuffed pillows thrown on top... We are pretty much suffocated.
Anyway I am worried about economic and national inefficiencies literally crippling Britian, we have more layers of govermental duvet that I predict everyone will die in the UK from cripplinging over leadership.
We have: Local Government Then: National assemblies (if you live in Scotland, Wales or Ireland, if you live in Engalnd you can go screw yourself... Ontop of that we have: Westminster... National Government or the UK Government.
In the US and parts of Canada they have 4 different levels of government.
Local (lower tier): An example would be a city like Kitchener or a city like Detroit Local (higher tier): the Region of Waterloo (in the case of Kitchener) or Wayne County (Detroit) State/Provincial: (Ontario in the case of Waterloo and Michigan in the case of Detroit) and then federal.
Two party system, both parties are statist and are deluding themselves into thinking they are not. We need more laws for everything! Yay, more bureaucracy!
Economy tanking. Mass amounts of foreclosed homes. Especially where I live. Impossible to get a job, which is why I've had so much time on my hands. Most people in my generation are still clinging to their parents since they cannot acquire a job; myself included, I'm far from proud of it. Since we have so much abundance, sometimes comically called "affluenza," we're hardly in truly dire straits, but resources are not truly infinite; when is everything going to truly come crashing down? We elected a President who promised that things would change, but things have only stayed along the same track and gotten worse as time has progressed.
Socially, kids are coddled such and then hit in the face so suddenly with responsibility that we are essentially asked to grow up overnight. Also, kids? What are those? Over population seems to be taking care of itself here in the States, where people would rather have big screen TVs than children. I'm not exaggerating at all. Many Republicans are concerned about how many illegal immigrants we get from Mexico, a legitimate concern. But hell, at least they often have strong family values and high moral standards unlike us.
American culture is idiotic. It's all based around media. This last year, I heard more people go on about "May the Fourth be with you" than saying anything at all about Memorial Day. You know, the holiday celebrating the soldiers that bought our freedom with blood. Sickening. People are losing grip with reality over here. Nobody has to worry about what they're going to eat, what they're going to wear, where they're going to live, but where is everything coming from? The farms that are increasingly government regulated? The businesses that are increasingly government regulated? As I said before, when does it finally come crashing down?
Meanwhile in terms of foreign relations we are finding more and more ways to get ourselves involved in other peoples' affairs in the name of justice. "We kill people who kill people because killing people is wrong." There may have been a time when we could consider ourselves an inspiration to other countries, a time when we had the moral high ground; but it is not right now. We've been in conflict in the middle east for oil as much as anything. Scientists are working hard to find suitable replacements for gasoline, that precious black gold that we all need to drive to work every day. Meanwhile the government is finding ways to regulate these scientists and the companies backing them so that their innovations never come into fruition, essentially ensuring we all stay dependent on oil.
"Where are we going wrong?" Everyone points fingers to a certain group(s) of individuals. Most people are apparently blind to the fact that our government was founded on freedom being most important above all else, because we are traveling further and further from liberty with each passing day, wondering why things are not working out. "Whoa, that's going wrong over there? We should pass a law!"
Overall ... things are decently comfortable at the moment. But in a few years, it won't be.
I will never understand how some people can follow up "politicians are corrupt, inept or self-serving" with "we should nationalize more industries"
I will never understand how people can follow up "adidas and coca cola are inept and self serving", with "we should privatize more industries".
The hyperbole might be unwarranted (if so, im sorry @booinyoureyes), but I think it displays a point very effectively: Generally, private capital investsments are made *purely* for profit, increased democratic ownership means that there are even more on stake, people *have* to take control of government. They dont want every national resource sold overseas for short-term profit, though that would make a lot of sense for a private company.
Yeah, I guess people complain more about politicians than corporations, not because politicians are necessarily worse, but because people don't expect anything better from corporations.
I will never understand how some people can follow up "politicians are corrupt, inept or self-serving" with "we should nationalize more industries"
I will never understand how people can follow up "adidas and coca cola are inept and self serving", with "we should privatize more industries".
The hyperbole might be unwarranted (if so, im sorry @booinyoureyes), but I think it displays a point very effectively: Generally, private capital investsments are made *purely* for profit, increased democratic ownership means that there are even more on stake, people *have* to take control of government. They dont want every national resource sold overseas for short-term profit, though that would make a lot of sense for a private company.
That is a very silly comparison for a couple reasons: -Private companies have competition. Don't like Addidas go to Nike. Nationalized industries have zero competition... thus no need to improve service. Nationalized industries are oftentimes become exactly what the people who created them tried to avoid: monopolies. -People who work in "nationalized" industries also profit. Find me an employee for a nationalized industry that does not receive a salary. -Dealing with a corporation is voluntary. Dealing with a government is not. You cannot interact on equal grounds in both cases. -I completely disagree that the idea that "since there is even more at stake people *have* to take control of government". I don't know anything about fishing, and neither do 90% of Americans. Why would we want to have any control over fishing? What qualifies any voter to do so? Nothing. Now imagine that "taking control" when it comes to things that require even *more* expertise (technology, biological sciences, trade agreements). "Democratic ownership" could be disastrous.
Yeah, I guess people complain more about politicians than corporations, not because politicians are necessarily worse, but because people don't expect anything better from corporations.
Also because while I didn't choose my politician, I can leave one corporation for one that serves me better. It is easier to correct a problem in a market than in a bureaucracy, particularly when two different people have different desires when it comes to a good/service.
Well, it's easy to switch corporations if you have the money. If you don't, you're either stuck with the cheap ones, or none at all. I don't doubt privitization would likely be a good thing in most situations for those who are wealthy.
Well, it's easy to switch corporations if you have the money. If you don't, you're either stuck with the cheap ones, or none at all. I don't doubt privitization would likely be a good thing in most situations for those who are wealthy.
Switching corporations due to price is possible *because* of the market. One provider pricing his commodity lower than another is possible because the cheaper provider wants the business of a consumer who cannot afford the higher prices. What are the alternative in a nationalized organization? And if we are to look for giving those without money access to a good or service, then would not a voucher program be far superior to nationalization? That way the consumer has the right to choose *and* can afford the service that he selects. Food is the most vital of all commodities. If anything, you'd think that was the number one commodity that governments would want to nationalize right? Wouldn't it be more efficient? Yet where is the nationalized food industry? What we have is food stamps in the States which serves essentially as a voucher for edible goods. Most governments employ a similar approach. That has worked out fairly well without nationalizing the agricultural industry. The only country that I know of that has nationalized food distribution is Zimbabwe. Yet there is food shortage there.
Comments
As pointed out. I picked up on one small part of a post. And ranted like a politician at question time...
Anyway... My Dad became a local politician. He signed up to stop a factory pouring out Aluminium oxides or something, from its chimney stack. Everybody was angry with it as well. Got the factory to install scrubbers. This was quite easy as press coverage came in and a report on midlands today about pollution. A possible link to cancers in the area. Yep. Pressure was applied and the stack pumps out mostly water vapour now. Dad continued having lots of fun with things like arguing about fence boundaries. Who tidies the park and stuff. Then... He left politics... So... I have a biased view... damn...
http://m.halesowennews.co.uk/news/9305010.Complaints_after_metal_burning_turns_sky_over_Cradley_yellow/
They have stopped it. But can I find a news story...
I also feel that Australian schools lack a decent education about politics to begin with. I mean, I attended high school here, we did units on world politics, mainly America but none on local, state and federal. Nothing on the various parties, what they stand for, who represents them, their leanings or anything like that. The name "Liberal Party" may well be misleading to many people who don't know anything else about them. It implies some form of change or Liberal open minded leanings when they are in fact right wing conservatives.
I also agree with both @Corvino and @NaturalBornKieler that we need more politicians with experience in their fields. Our defence minister, David Johnston was a lawyer for mining companies in Western Australia. He has no experience what so ever with what it takes to effectively run the ADF. However our current Governor-General Sir Peter Cosgrove is an experienced Army general, former Chief of the Defence forces and Chief of the Army with 4 decades of experience. I served in the RAAF myself and would much rather have Cosgrove as defence minister...
But I also see where @NaturalBornKieler is coming from. Half of our politicians sleep through their time in the house. If we cut their pay and conditions or at least made them work for it they probably wouldn't do it anymore. Don't get me wrong I'd love to do it but I doubt I have the qualifications and I HIGHLY doubt I'd ever convince anyone I wasn't a twat!
Typing with caps lock on apparently counts as two votes
You can do that on some things, but not everything. Some things have to be either true or false. You can't just ignore actual stuff. Global warming is either real or not. Vaccines either cause a host of vaguely defined but definitely very bad things in your children or they don't(they don't).
Economics can't run that way either. You can't set the minimum wage on principle. You experiment and see what gets the best result. You raise it in some places, keep it low in others. If the economy crashes and a host of small businesses close their doors in the places you raised it, then you keep it low. If the workforce goes on strike In the places you kept it low and the general welfare of the lower class decreases then you raise it.
You don't just pick the one you like better, you find out which one works. It's not like one is inherently better than the other, it's just the one that works and the one that doesn't.
If science ran the same way government did then we would have scientists divided and arguing over weather or not atoms should be real. Cause, ya'know, we get to decide.
*sigh*
One the other hand, it is fun to watch. I do love me some Herman Cain. (I guess that makes me a bad person?)
Oh question time makes me sick. Liberals just have four answers to everything and they just repeat it every time. It's infuriating.
"Stop the boats!" Can't have those dirty terrorist refugees getting in here can we?! Oh GOD no.
Hopefully sanity will prevail. The cold war came alarmingly close many times but never quite got there. Would be so perfect if we could just get along as a race. We're capable of SO much more then what we currently have.
Anyway, Norway has had one of the most radical governments in Europe the last eight years - which has been pretty good, of course the major part of the coalition government has been social democrats and the socialist party has whittled away because people dont seem to udnerstand why a 5% party cannot dictate the policies over a 35% party. I has been good because the government has generally fought social dumping, enforced good abor laws and limited the increasing use of temporary employment - even though the use of temporary workers have increased overall. The most important failure of this government in my eyes is that they have done nothing to change our oil-driven economy, as a small country we have a huge problem in that nearly everybody who is any good at maths works in the oil industry, which we will only have for a limited time. Thats not touching on the envrionmntal issues connected with one-sided investments in oil manufacturing.
The new government is right leaning (moderate-right, light blue party & and a darker blue party, formerly slighly racist, now mostly liberitarian and business-owner-friendly). They havent enacted much policy yet, but as a educator I am concerned about increased privatization of schools (very hard to reverse) as well as the economic policies. Normal Norwegian households have a very healthy economy, to decrease taxes further for people who already have two cabins and two cars and five flatscreens can be problematic, this money is needed in the health and education sector. Most Norwegians use the public health service, I am afraid that over time developments will udnermine the public health/education sector - instead of making public schools and hospitals better for everyone people will increasingly pay to get better/faster service, which in turn will decrease the funding/the will to fund these sectors. I think those are the most important challenges in Norway right now. Others might relate.
The Liberals, who are in power now are much more right wing then the former Labor party. They claim to be "Bringing the budget back under control". Not that there was a problem there anyway but they're using it as an excuse to sell government assets, reduce the pension, increase the retirement age, cut government spending on schools, secondary education and university as well as scrapping the carbon reduction scheme. They don't believe in climate change and as such see no reason to do anything about it. They even scrapped the job of Minister for the environment.
They seem to think that having a budget in surplus is more useful then using it for the betterment of the country. What use is a massive bank balance if you won't do anything useful with it?
I do see the issues with oil-centric economies, and there are many of them. You're investing heavily into a resource that is in no way going to last forever. Once it runs out, where are your investments now?
Yeah, sounds familiar
To be fair, I am a bit proud with how Norway has tackled the oil economy up to this point, nationalizing it and making sure the competence has stayed in the country rather than contracting in (underpaid) foreign companies, also most direct taxation from the oil industry does *not* go into the budget, but into a savings fund (we only use approximately 4% of the income). For many countries the oil is more of a blessing than a curse - it has been a blessing up until now because we havent turned into spoiled Quatarians (no offence intended), but it might not stay that way for long.
Anyway, interesting about the Environment minister - I am actually a bit torn on that, I think perhaps an environment minister actually should be removed, because the really important part in saving the environment is in the hands of the industry and energy minister. Id rather have a environmentalist energy/industry minister than a powerless environmental minister - my impression is that environment ministers at most can create National Parks :P
I refer you to an incident in New Zealand, the government sold New Zealand Rail to Toll, Toll didn't bother to maintain it or run it properly, the government was forced to buy it back.
Yes I'd had the same thought! It's interesting, their job used to be more harassing the other ministers on enviromental matters and trying to keep them working towards that goal. I fear with that roll gone and with no one really caring anymore they will just proceed all speed ahead with whatever witless wonder they come up with next.
They also tried and fail to get a huge amount of heritage listed parks and forests in Tasmania de-registered so they could be cut down and turned into wood pulp. Not to mention they want to dredge parts of/very close to the great barrier reef. It's in the way of ships. So it has to go. :P
I'm not a tree hugging hippy type but I do think we have to treat this planet responsibly. It's our home, not just one nations home, not just the E.U. or the U.S. but for the entire race. What do we do if we manage to ruin the delicate balance beyond our ability to repair...?
Their main selling points are not being one of the main political parties and their mistrust of Europe. That's all they've got really. Which either says there are a lot of xenophobes in the UK who got rallied to vote, or that the main political parties have really disenfranchised everyone else.
@Corvino UKIPs only selling point is to give the people the vote to leave the E.U. The lack of attendance is because they don't have a clue what the party line is on so many issues that they literally cannot sing from the same song sheet; meaning that when constituents come to have a chat, about the same thing in different boroughs, you can expect two completely (sometimes mindboggling according to the press) answers. As for highest expenses, they are buying there second homes, so need to pay the deposit on the house... Why can't they put 'em all in a block of flats next door to Westminster so they can also save on transport fees... Anyway... dodge... sounds all dodge... (Anduin would like to say he has not checked his sources, just read em somewhere once, and cannot be arsed to read em up again, because no one has wikied up politician expenditures yet...)
Anyway I am worried about economic and national inefficiencies literally crippling Britian, we have more layers of govermental duvet that I predict everyone will die in the UK from cripplinging over leadership.
We have: Local Government
Then: National assemblies (if you live in Scotland, Wales or Ireland, if you live in Engalnd you can go screw yourself...
Ontop of that we have: Westminster... National Government or the UK Government.
Ontop of this and should be mentioned as they add to the tax burden we have: The Royals. Who actually do a bit of pomp and generally do work and useful stuff. HOW DID IT COME TO THIS, WHY IS MOI, THE PEASANTRY, SAYING THE ROYALS ARE DOING WORK AND THE POLITICIANS ARE DOING SWEET F.ootball A.ssociation...
And then: European crap. Who have taken most of the powers from westminster anyway, thats why you only see stuff about education and power generation (the electrical kind) being banded about by politicians.
Under all those politicians... And I have not even mentioned the courts that are the stuffed pillows thrown on top... We are pretty much suffocated.
Local (lower tier): An example would be a city like Kitchener or a city like Detroit
Local (higher tier): the Region of Waterloo (in the case of Kitchener) or Wayne County (Detroit)
State/Provincial: (Ontario in the case of Waterloo and Michigan in the case of Detroit)
and then federal.
Two party system, both parties are statist and are deluding themselves into thinking they are not. We need more laws for everything! Yay, more bureaucracy!
Economy tanking. Mass amounts of foreclosed homes. Especially where I live. Impossible to get a job, which is why I've had so much time on my hands. Most people in my generation are still clinging to their parents since they cannot acquire a job; myself included, I'm far from proud of it. Since we have so much abundance, sometimes comically called "affluenza," we're hardly in truly dire straits, but resources are not truly infinite; when is everything going to truly come crashing down? We elected a President who promised that things would change, but things have only stayed along the same track and gotten worse as time has progressed.
Socially, kids are coddled such and then hit in the face so suddenly with responsibility that we are essentially asked to grow up overnight. Also, kids? What are those? Over population seems to be taking care of itself here in the States, where people would rather have big screen TVs than children. I'm not exaggerating at all. Many Republicans are concerned about how many illegal immigrants we get from Mexico, a legitimate concern. But hell, at least they often have strong family values and high moral standards unlike us.
American culture is idiotic. It's all based around media. This last year, I heard more people go on about "May the Fourth be with you" than saying anything at all about Memorial Day. You know, the holiday celebrating the soldiers that bought our freedom with blood. Sickening. People are losing grip with reality over here. Nobody has to worry about what they're going to eat, what they're going to wear, where they're going to live, but where is everything coming from? The farms that are increasingly government regulated? The businesses that are increasingly government regulated? As I said before, when does it finally come crashing down?
Meanwhile in terms of foreign relations we are finding more and more ways to get ourselves involved in other peoples' affairs in the name of justice. "We kill people who kill people because killing people is wrong." There may have been a time when we could consider ourselves an inspiration to other countries, a time when we had the moral high ground; but it is not right now. We've been in conflict in the middle east for oil as much as anything. Scientists are working hard to find suitable replacements for gasoline, that precious black gold that we all need to drive to work every day. Meanwhile the government is finding ways to regulate these scientists and the companies backing them so that their innovations never come into fruition, essentially ensuring we all stay dependent on oil.
"Where are we going wrong?" Everyone points fingers to a certain group(s) of individuals. Most people are apparently blind to the fact that our government was founded on freedom being most important above all else, because we are traveling further and further from liberty with each passing day, wondering why things are not working out. "Whoa, that's going wrong over there? We should pass a law!"
Overall ... things are decently comfortable at the moment. But in a few years, it won't be.
The hyperbole might be unwarranted (if so, im sorry @booinyoureyes), but I think it displays a point very effectively: Generally, private capital investsments are made *purely* for profit, increased democratic ownership means that there are even more on stake, people *have* to take control of government. They dont want every national resource sold overseas for short-term profit, though that would make a lot of sense for a private company.
-Private companies have competition. Don't like Addidas go to Nike. Nationalized industries have zero competition... thus no need to improve service. Nationalized industries are oftentimes become exactly what the people who created them tried to avoid: monopolies.
-People who work in "nationalized" industries also profit. Find me an employee for a nationalized industry that does not receive a salary.
-Dealing with a corporation is voluntary. Dealing with a government is not. You cannot interact on equal grounds in both cases.
-I completely disagree that the idea that "since there is even more at stake people *have* to take control of government". I don't know anything about fishing, and neither do 90% of Americans. Why would we want to have any control over fishing? What qualifies any voter to do so? Nothing. Now imagine that "taking control" when it comes to things that require even *more* expertise (technology, biological sciences, trade agreements). "Democratic ownership" could be disastrous.
And if we are to look for giving those without money access to a good or service, then would not a voucher program be far superior to nationalization? That way the consumer has the right to choose *and* can afford the service that he selects.
Food is the most vital of all commodities. If anything, you'd think that was the number one commodity that governments would want to nationalize right? Wouldn't it be more efficient? Yet where is the nationalized food industry? What we have is food stamps in the States which serves essentially as a voucher for edible goods. Most governments employ a similar approach.
That has worked out fairly well without nationalizing the agricultural industry. The only country that I know of that has nationalized food distribution is Zimbabwe. Yet there is food shortage there.