🚀 go-pugleaf

Dean Hollister <dean@mushka.cx> wrote in message
news:381bd71a.0@news.wa.apana.org.au...
> "Death" <somewhere@other.than.here> writes:
>
> >If? So if the major parties get hammered, i.e they lose 40%
> >of seats then maybe we might have other politicians having a
> >look in. The one thing all these so called parties have
> >in common, that which will markout their choice, is
> >that they are all politicians.
>
> And there's nothing stopping that now? Who appoints the GG again? Who can
> sack the GG now at whim? Who can appoint his 'mate' GG when it suits him?
> See the flaw in what you're saying?

No. Elaborate. In our present system the Queen 'ON THE ADVICE'
of the PM appoints and sacks the GG. The Queen also mandates the GG
to sign acts into law on 'HER BEHALF'. That's why we are having this
referendum. That DOESN'T mean we should give the advisor the
reins of power merging the seperation of powers, or even a two-thirds
majority of parliment who for all intense and purposes are the two senior
party politicians. For good govenment you need clear delinernation
between the roles, this new model doesn't give that.


>
> >Largely? So the GG does some important things like signing
> >stuff into Law?
>
> On behalf of old Lizzie 15,000km away, in another country. The GG is not
> our head of state, he's just Lizzie's lacky down here.

Yes, I agree. We live not in the British parlimentary system, but a
hybrid that creates a 'lacky' to sew the systems together. Hell's
bell, we are about to formalise a hybrid 'lacky' position into
our constutition. Geeze, and you think people would realise
that knocking the GG is actually knocking the preposed new
system because they are so meant to be so similar.
Stupid is an understatement.

>
> >Oh, and you go to hell when you die. ;-)
>
> Like I'm worried?

;-)

> >Clearly not multicultural inclusivity that we have come to expect
> >from government, I think we for good order, we should ask every
> >religious and cult (only in Oz mind) to nominate their own.;-)
>
> Hehehe.

;-)

>
> >Look Christians can believe whatever they like, I don't care much.
> >I do agree we don't need divisive language like those 'two' words.
>
> No what I'm saying is a church, *any* church, should not be permitted to
> have their finger in the proverbial pie. But that's another story.

I agree wholeheartly with the sentiment.

God is so secularised that in the sense meant in the constitution it
has become as wishy washy as most common religious nonsense,
however it's it's addition that adds division to the document, a document
that should unite us all.


>
> >But I somehow can't help feeling your missing my point, words
> >count little compared to the outcome from a selection process that is
> >filtered by politicians.
>
> Well I've already torn that to shreds. You seriously believe a 'popularly'
> elected President/HOS won't be political? Hello? Who in their right mind,
> other than political parties or hungry millionaires are going to have kind
> of hard cash required to advertise on three national commercial TV
> networks, countless other commercial radio stations, $10k+ ads in the
> major papers in each Australian city and on and on it goes? If you want
> the slightest chance of election you will need serious cash to raise
> enough of a public profile.

This is a question of ascribing value and trust to elements of the
preposed system, anyone elected will of course be a 'political'
figure, but you make it sound like all 'political' figures are equal
and then miss my point, cause you shreded it, that middlemen
have to feed themselves and will filter the system to do so.

Sometime you need middlemen, sometime's it's better to
cut out the middlemen and go directly to the source. The
source is the People, all power in our system comes from
the people (well ever since we loped the head off anyone who
tried to say otherwise.). If your arguing that a direct election
is going to be more incumbered by cash, etc, then wakeup
the middlemen are already racking it in. If your arguing that
the monied interests will be interested in throwing money
at a essentially powerless figurehead and that the public
is swayed by advertising then you  really
have a unhill task to convince me. The Irish presidential
race doesn't have these problems, because there is
no commercial interest for such interferance, if anything
there is a huge disincentive to be seem directly trying
to influence political processes that has direct negative
knock on effects for profit margins. e.g. a large company,
say shell, can be well within it's rights to dump an oil
platform at sea, but all it's take is for people to get
annoyed and takings at the pump drop accross europe.

>
> >All the differing opinions of the people can not represented
> >by politicians, but they can be in another process where
> >all opinions are held equal through one citizen one vote.
>
> Well too bad they currently are! Or don't you vote?

I do vote or have to, and I will vote 'No' because the current system
on offer is not better and I believe worse than the current
one.

>
> Regards,
>
> d.
>