Thread: Whiccle Johnnie

Originally Posted by silentC

It's a shame that our council is just about broke, because they would have done some great things otherwise

No problem, they can just increase the rates

They are currently putting a case to the State government for a 'one-off' increase of 14% :eek:

Originally Posted by Sturdee

The only way to get things done in your area by the government is to become a swinging electorate. Change the political colour of your electorate et least every two terms and they'll fund every little project just to buy votes. :eek: :eek: :eek:

And they'll call that good government as well. :mad:


Peter.

Like in the case of the Mildura electorate in Vic.
Neither Labor or Liberal.
Mildura - Future home for hazardous waste disposal.

It seems good government from the pollies might be about doing something necessary so it dont hurt either major party. :eek:

Originally Posted by jow104

Sounds like House of Parliment and local government (council).

It's more complicated than that, there is the Federal (national) government, the state government and local councils too.

Originally Posted by craigb

Here's a novel idea. Why not elect the members of your house of review?

Or would that be too democratic?

I think an unelected (ie appointed) second house is a good idea. Politics (translated as popularity of the people) get removed and people get appointed based on their contribution and role in society.

You could extend it to include people who are good representatives of society. eg retired heads of police, religious figures, charity workers, judges, ex politicians, etc

people who are good representatives of society

Do you mean representatives of good society, or good people who represent society? Wouldn't you want butchers and bakers and candlestick makers too? How would they get nominated and appointed? I think you'd end up with a bunch of people from a certain 'class' and representing a particular point of view. I'd also be unhappy having religious figureheads with any overt role in running the country.

Originally Posted by simon c

I think an unelected (ie appointed) second house is a good idea. Politics (translated as popularity of the people) get removed and people get appointed based on their contribution and role in society.

You could extend it to include people who are good representatives of society. eg retired heads of police, religious figures, charity workers, judges, ex politicians, etc

But WHO selects them??
we should give them respectful titles like the pollies have e.g "The Hon"
To distinguish second house members from pollies they need to be differentiated by their title.
How about "Lords and Ladies"

Originally Posted by silentC

It's a shame that our council is just about broke, because they would have done some great things otherwise

Hmmm so they really DO have management skills down there!!

P

Yes, a shining example to the rest of the country....

Ahh yes,

Government bashing again are we? I leave you all alone for two days and look happens.

Could you imagine for asecond if the government and it's public servants had the same customer service and attitude as you local "hardworking" tradesman?

Geez! :mad:

How else do we get even with those that breaks their promises

Originally Posted by silentC

Do you mean representatives of good society, or good people who represent society?

Either would be nice, but I meant a range of people who gave a reasonable representation of society.

Originally Posted by echnidna

To distinguish second house members from pollies they need to be differentiated by their title. How about "Lords and Ladies"

I agree that what I propose is similar to the current House of Lords in the UK. I have some major problems with the old House of Lords system (ie hereditary peerage). But I also have problems with an elected second house, ie what's the difference between each house.

Originally Posted by silentC

Wouldn't you want butchers and bakers and candlestick makers too? ... I'd also be unhappy having religious figureheads with any overt role in running the country.

An interesting couple of options:
1. I think "trades" could have representation too - maybe through trade associations. As should industry and unions.
2. I understand your feelings about religion. I am not religious, but a very large proportion of people are, and that should be represented.

In regard to nominatiosn and appointment, I keep mentioning "retired" people, but what I really mean is that they no longer take the role they used to, in order to avoid conflict of interest.

My main goal behind this is to remove the "elected and popular" part of this to allow people to make decisions on what they think is in the best interests of the country rather than whta will get votes.

a very large proportion of people are

However, which religions do you represent? If you put one in there, you'd have to put them all or there'd be an outcry. Then imagine the bedlam that would follow. They'd all be pushing their own barrows. If anything, I reckon the people in there should be areligious. Seperation of powers. It's there for a reason.

Originally Posted by simon c

ie what's the difference between each house.

Same as it is between the Reps and the Senate. The reps make the laws and provide the PM, the senate reviews the legislation and accepts or rejects it.

And as has been mentioned, who is going to appoint the members in your model?

Presumably, it'd be the party that has the majority in the lower house.
How would those appointments NOT be political?