So who are you going to vote for?

Well, well, well.

Only Tory Barber on here fighting the 'right' fight? Mal needs more than his paramedic skills, I wager. Jeez, even Nicolas Cage going full-Con Air would be struggling to save the LNP right now.

I thought at least Blowie would be on here singing the praises of Pauline? Ah well...

Seeing as the ABCs DRUM is getting the kibosh under the new management (along with FACT-CHECK), I thought I'd share some prime commentary from some of its consumers as a sort of last hurrah. Up the levels here at least.

"OK, here's a little experiment for you. Stick you fingers in your ears, close your eyes, and say, in a stern voice, "I told you so". Now, open your eyes, pull your fingers out of your ears, and look around. Has anything changed? Is the world a better place?

What "we" have been "seeing" is that something is not right. But, as we already know that something is not right, the mere fact that self-appointed spokespeople for the common man like Trump, Hanson and Abbott make lots of noise in their attempts to use our dissatisfaction against us is more of a negative that a contribution. We need to ignore this static, and concentrate on fixing the problem. And the problem is a thing called "corporate rent", and how it has grown to unsustainable levels over the past forty years.

Corporate rent is wealth that is extracted from the economy via profits, property rent and interest, by corporations. In being extracted from the economy, this wealth becomes unavailable to us for the satisfaction of our needs and wants. So, if we look at the wealth that we create as a nation (Gross National Income) as a cake, corporate rent is like a slice taken out of the cake by the waiter before it is served to the diner. And, ever since 1974, the size of the slice taken out of our cake by corporate rent has almost doubled from under 15% to nearly 30%.

In 1974, when corporate rent ate up less than 15% of our national "cake", we had enough to pay for Medibank, free university education, a massive revamp of public education, and huge boosts to the liveability of cities. Now, with corporate rent consuming nearly a third of all that we produce, we can't afford it, and that is what is making us cross.

So there's the answer. We need to control corporate rent, and to bring it down to sustainable levels that will allow the wealth that we produce as a nation to be spent by us and on us, in the satisfaction of our needs and wants."

"Yeah, our leaders have had ideological blinkers on, like, forever. . .

Their ideas simply don't mesh with reality and reality doesn't bend for ideologies.

Our major parties are akin to walking dead - they've stopped thinking and are just waiting to drop. Perhaps they've already committed the suicide that you mentioned?

Here's hoping they haven't already shuffled us into a chasm from which we cannot climb out. Because it's not all just about the splits in the profits of the system, but also whether the system is degrading our environment to the point where we have no future."

"Yeah, our leaders have had ideological blinkers on, like, forever."

Actually, I think that it is the other way around. It is not ideology that is the problem, but the lack of it, or at least the lack of attention to it, in modern government.

Ideology is an important factor in politics. There are all sorts of different ways of figuring our the "what"s, "when"s "where"s and even "how"s of government decision-making, but only ideology supplies the "why", and it is the "why" that provides direction and keeps a nation and its government on course.

What we have seen over the past forty years or so is a gradual replacement of ideology with expediency as the driving force of government decision-making and the policy development mechanisms of political parties. You are more likely to get into an argument over polling methods or the likely payback from pandering to a particular lobby in a modern party headquarters than you are to get into one over the merits of a universal healthcare system or public education.

But I think that there is at least some cause for optimism. I think that at least some of Shorten's spectacular achievement in restoring Labor's electoral fortunes can be attributed to the fact that Shorten and his team put the psephologists and marketers back into their boxes, and concentrating instead on building a strong suite of policies that were inspired and informed by the party's core ideology. It was a pretty brave thing to do because it is a long time since it has had any success as a political strategy. And I can imagine that Shorten would have had to endure a lot of flak from within the party establishment, especially during the brief resurgence of Tory fortunes following the leadership change. But it appears to have worked, and we can only hope that this success leads more parties to have the confidence to stand on what they believe in, rather than simply what will get them elected."

"I agree that the 'why' we are doing this or that is not being addressed.

For example, why are both major parties (who appear characteristic of the western political class in general with perhaps, a few outliers/exceptions) so steadfastly committed to an economic and political system that is dead set keen to destroy the environment - and probably all of us by default?

Where is the vision in that?

So when you say that it is not ideology that is the problem: "but the lack of it, or at least the lack of attention to it, in modern government." I suppose I partly agree with you - my one big caveat being that that seems to depend on whose ideology we're talking about.

If you are talking about mainstream ideologies (capitalism, socialism, etc.) then more of the same doesn't seem likely to be helpful at all.

Those ideologies do not represent a genuine challenge to the machine of civilisation and its impact on the world - which needs to happen or we are probably done for.

If, on the other hand, you are talking about some kind of new ideology (or ideologies) that promise to make truly transformative changes to the way we behave en masse, well, we could certainly do with some of that.

Don't get me wrong - I am encouraged by Labor standing up for its beliefs. It's difficult not to admire people who demonstrate courage of their convictions and in general I think this type of behaviour should be encouraged.

It's just that I do wonder what good will their vision will do on a dead planet.

The political classes are outmoded - their ideas don't fit the reality of the day. Our shared project of civilisation has failed the economic, social and environmental policy trifecta - it is not just hopelessly unstable and unjust, but also unsustainable - which to state the obvious means that it is doomed to fail. When that happens the rich won't be able to eat gold anymore than the poor can eat sand.

So yes, some new ideas, and a new focus on why we are doing what we are doing, from either/both Labor/Liberal would be most welcome."

"why are both major parties (who appear characteristic of the western political class in general with perhaps, a few outliers/exceptions) so steadfastly committed to an economic and political system that is dead set keen to destroy the environment"

Simply because that is what we demand of them. And we demand this of them because we listen to those in whose interests it is for the current status quo to be maintained. We have the power to change this simply by not listening to the false prophets and supporting politicians who are brave enough to dance to a different tune and engage directly with the people to understand our real concerns and work with us to solve them. We should be clever enough to see through the shortcuts and easy answers thrown at us by populists like Hitler, Hanson, Trump and Abbott, and brave enough to make big decisions as a society, and to stick with them.

We can't expect our politicians to do the job themselves - that is not their role. All that they can do is to enable and empower our efforts to build a better society by managing the economy and our civil society in ways that promote the goals we wish to achieve. Building a nation, a strong economy and a robust, vital civil society is a joint project and we all have our roles to play. Politicians have theirs, but they cannot fulfill that role unless we fulfill ours and support brave politicians who refuse to dance to the tune of the corporates."

"There seems to be a 'historical inevitability' about what is happening. I suspect that what we are seeing is just the beginning of our decent into chaos - I'm not convinced that signing up to a doomed system body and soul will help all that much.

Our politics are outmoded and many of our 'leaders' and 'thinkers' seem incapable of engaging with reality - probably because the machine of civilisation that their politics are part of is simply beyond reform and instead needs to be abandoned for something new. A scary thought, and I don't think they actually know what to do.

The status quo cannot go on, tensions are rising, and the first cracks are emerging along familiar/predictable fault lines What comes next I wonder? I suspect more of the same, but ever worsening until the wheels finally fall off.

My view is that leaders should lead, especially in matters that concern our on-going existence. If they cannot do this, then they should be replaced. If they don't know what to do, then they should be replaced.

If/when the overarching thrust of our 'leaders' ideas/vision is worth supporting then I'll be sure to support them. In the interim, I'm happy to remain on the outside.

My prediction, for what it's worth, is that this won't happen and the situation will continue along much the same lines as it has, until it cannot go on. At that point in time, something better adapted to reality will emerge - assuming survival is possible of course.

I don't have to do anything to make this happen - in fact, it's probably the case that most anything I do will just make things worse. Accordingly, I think I'd rather not engage all too deeply with the status quo."

"We need to get it in proper order. Decide what sort of society we want; decide what place in the world we want to occupy and then, only then, work on the economic strategies needed to achieve our aims."

Exceedingly well said sir! I dips me lid to you. This is exactly what politics and government is all about.

The economy is a tool, not a goal or a god. It is one of the most complex and chaotic systems in the universe, but it does serve a very important purpose and it is important that it works as effectively and efficiently as possible. But it is even more important that we always remember WHY it is important that the economy runs well, rather than allowing ourselves to be lulled into the false belief that we are behaving in all of these odd ways simply to satisfy the needs and wants of the mythical beast we call "the economy".

We have allowed ourselves to fall prey to the same sort of shamanistic nonsense that brought down the great pre-Colombian civilisations of Central America. Their system of economic management was vested in the inherited "wisdom" of high priests who had exclusive access to the "levers" of the economy - in this case the elemental gods who controlled the Sun, rain, wind and so on and, in doing so, controlled the output of Mesoamerican economies. In order to appease and flatter these deities, greater and greater sacrifices were demanded of the people.

It is hard to see how our current approach to economics and government is much different. If we substitute "the economy" for the elemental forces, and the captains of industry and their representatives in conservative politics as the high priests, our approach would make perfect sense to a Toltec, Olmec or Mayan.

Perhaps it is time to expose the wizards and high priests of voodoo economics, cast them out, and develop a slightly more grown-up relationship with OUR economy."

"The economy is not a "tool" in any sense. The economy simply is a system in which goods and services are produced and consumed. It is not a tool that can be used in any form as it is too large and chaotic for any one sector to control and any form of trying to control it and use it as a tool normally runs into contrary forces cancelling out such control."

"The economy simply is a system in which goods and services are produced and consumed."

So what? A hammer is simply a system for transferring the power of your elbow into the head of a nail in order to drive the nail into some sort of medium. This does not mean that it is not a tool. All tools are systems that are dedicated to a specific purpose, and the economy is no different.

Now, as you point out, the economy is an example of what is known as a "chaotic" system, and one of the defining characteristics of chaotic systems is that relatively small inputs and imbalances can produce large and significant (butterfly) effects. And this means that, although the chaotic nature of the system makes its future behaviour unpredictable (but not random), it is possible to influence and guide its behaviour with relatively small control inputs if we understand and respect the "rules" that govern and constrain the behaviour of the system. And we can thank two blokes in particular - Adam Smith and Karl Marx - for laying the foundations of our understanding of the "rules" governing the operation of economies.

Now, if we put our hammer on a pedestal and kneel down before it, we will not get many nails hammered in. And if we do the same with our economy, we will not satisfy our wants and needs at all, or in a very sustainable manner. Tools are only useful if you use them, and use them with an understanding of the rules that govern their behaviour, and apply them to their proper purpose.

There is nothing mystical about the economy that puts it in a class apart from other tools that we employ in our pursuit of happiness. But it is in the interests of some to allow and encourage us to believe that we are powerless before the almighty economy and have no choice but to bow down to it. Shame on you for being their mindless mouthpiece."

good comments turkeyman

what I take from that is most peoples realities don't stack up to the narratives of the media and professional classes

society, environment economy has paid a brutal price while only selected parts of the NWO were fed and fostered, the destructive parts

triple bottom line mantra gave in lip service only

There is another phenonemon at work here...... "Clicks for cash"..... Data usage..... Cha ching...... Nothing sells like "panic", like a good drama..... Yes, cat videos are popular, but "the end is nigh" is where the big bucks are..... Just ask Rupert.......
Now, take a look at the London stock exchange.....

It seems to have recovered quite nicely.... But last week, you'd swear Voldemort had landed in the UK, beaten Harry, and the darkness had set in forever.... And boy didn't some data get used.... And newspapers were selling like hotcakes.....
Well this week it's the "hung parliament disaster"..... It's the "no majority in the senate" maelstrom.....
But tell me, if only 3 of the last 32 years there has been a senate majority (Howards last term), and the government who had that majority was thrown out after that term, is it really the end days? And if the Gillard government was statistically the most productive re legislation, during a hung parliament, is it as bad as we think?

https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/jun/28/australia-producti...
Or is it opiates for the masses, making the disenfranchised feel like they "acheived" something whilst lining the pockets of media barons?

Yeah sheepy your right the puppet masters are at it again.........

Simba I'd like to see advertising budgets..... Wonder if there has been a glut of insurance advertising, in the Rupert mudlark papers in particular....

Apologies to mudlarks... Also know as pee wees..... They're a cool little bird.....

"Derryn Hinch threatens legal action if he is relegated to three-year Senate term"

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/jul/05/derryn-hinch-thre...

Thoughts on how to split 3 and 6 years senators? It seems to favour the 2 big parties... Quite undemocratic..
My thoughts - A price should be paid for calling a DD.... The party who called the DD should automatically have 1/2 it's elected senators on 3 years terms, those returned in this election who have already served 3 years in particular. It might make governments think long and hard about calling a DD on petty matters.

hey sheepster, what about any senator that has trouble understanding the separation of church and state getting only 3 years ... that should see Abetz and Bernardi gone to start with.

lol floyd..... But we all know that aint gonna happen..... That Abetz is a creep..... So shifty..

According to the wincing poodle they are an election winning machine, what a tool. With a majority like that I hope no one has to go to the bathroom.

Quote from Shatner:

""Maybe it seems "it's time" again here...time to vote in the LNP across the board in both houses. A "steady hand at the tiller" in these "uncertain seas" buffeted by "global economic headwinds" etc etc etc

Let's really release the LNP Kraken in times of global economic meltdown, or at the very least a more localised recession.

Let's see what they're really made of. More importantly, let's see what we're really made of.

Let's see what the "lucky country" is really like when the luck runs bad...and the LNP is in charge."

Well may you live in interesting and exciting times, Australia..."

The Turnbull dilemma:

First, develop policy that satisfies the far right in the Liberal Party;
Second, run that policy past the Nationals who are mostly further to the right of the far right Liberals;
Third, run policy past the far right conservative media to ensure they are onside;
Fourth, present policy to the House of Representatives where Labor and the cross bench can: accept, defeat or refer of to a Senate Select Committee for examination;
Fifth, after pleasing all of the above and having original policy change so much it no longer resembles the original thought present to the Senate for a vote where Labor and the cross bench can accept or defeat.

Yep, that's "stable" government right there ............... or ................ Turnbull could be the "real Malcolm" and cast off the ultra right of his own party and the Nationals and talk to Labor and the Greens about sensible policy initiatives that will pass both houses and take out of play the ultra right loonies and cross bench .... well, that aren't going to happen so its 3 (??) more years of mismanagement LNP style (that will be 6 all up then) .... its a good thing the adults are in charge then.

All true, Floyd.... But what about the Shorten dilemma?
1 - lost the election
2 - 2nd lowest primary vote for Labor in history
3 - Also has to deal with the likes of Hanson Hinch etc in the senate, as well as the greens.
4- Still not popular as a leader with the electorate
5- False dawn will keep an inept leader in charge of the party
6- party too scared to change leader for fear of coalition attack
Wedged good and proper......

ITS TIME, Bull Shitten
For you to start knitten
Get on yr bike
Take a hike
Its time to blow
Don't pass GO
Don't collect 2 hundy
Just PISS OFF...........................ITS TIME!

SD, yes there is the Shorten dilemma, but you missed a key point. He is the union choice. You may have noticed the role the unions played in the election. They spent a bit of cash.

Don't agree on Shorten. I think he did a great job of uniting Labor after the Rudd years. Remember all the 'twenty years of Liberal' predictions prior to the 2013 election? Shorten did a good job of stemming the infighting and creating unity, not to mention gaining twenty seats and almost forcing a minority government. He deserves to stay and it'd surprise me if he was toppled.

SD, Primary vote? It's been on a downward trend here and overseas for two decades with the rise of independent parties. Doubt anyone would be concerned.

And what do you mean wedged? What issue is he wedged on?

It took a while but " No Bullshit Bill" Shorten eventually won me over. I like his plain talking style. He never seems to descend to the sound bite.

I'd like to see Albo get a run, no BS(is that a pun?)

Yes, Stu, Shorty did an amazing job or did the Libs drop the ball. Don't worry Shorty will make hay of this for a long time, so Albo will be long forgotten in three years time. But if you look at the adds run by Labor and the adds run by the unions then you will see why. The infighting will stop whilst the unions are in control. It is interesting to see what's happening in Victoria with union influence. Whether this permeates to federal, I will guess yes. If the ABCC gets up then maybe no.

You have to laugh at the jumps in logic here, seriously.

No side of politics has an monopoly on being right and having good policy ideas.

Equally, both sides play to their base so to harp on about unions while completely ignoring the perversely covert people and organisations that control the conservatives is plain juvenile. At least unions are themselves (plus/minus) democratic organisations where the members (real people) get a vote on who leads them. Just try to find out who are the members of the IPA or who funds them or even more bizarrely try to find out the details of the "coalition agreement" between the Libs and Nats.

I agree with Stu that Shorten has done a wonderful job and this discussion of primary votes is fluff. As I said Sheepster-a-do-da compare Labor's primary vote to the Liberals.

As I have said here for perhaps 2 years the name of the game is policy not personality. If you want personality politics you get Hinch or Hansen or Palmer or god forbid Trump.

The trick for Australia and elsewhere is to never confuse populism with good government

Union influence? We could do with a bit more of that when employers are actually advertising jobs at half the basic wage!

But saying the party is wedged is to say they're split, and that's not the case at all. In fact they're more united than they've been in a long time.

Exactly Indo...... Wedged and split are 2 totally different things... A united team can be wedged into a corner.... And a split team usually isnt wedged, due to the ideological split.....

Labor has wedged themselves, partly their own fault, and partly the facade "success" of this election.. Shorten under achieved in my eyes.... He had sooooo much going for him..... i even think Beazly would've beaten the rabble that is the coalition..... Albaneze knows it.... Tanya knows it.... But if they challenge, after knifing 2 pms, the coalition and the press will have a field day....
69 seats to 77...... After all the hoo haa, its a clear win...... The encumbant always come back to the field...

What Shorten has on his side though, is an even more bizarre senate, thanks to the greens and xenophon voting with the Libs re' senate voting laws.... it'll be interesting to watch this space and see how Brandis, Abetz, Bernadi and co deal with it...

But my major concern is that the general voting public will never warm to a knifer..... With a primary vote of 34.96%, and a paltry 1.58% increase from the Gillard - Rudd fiasco in 2013, I give Shorten a D-. Annastacia Palaszczuk, who inherited a decimated Qld opposition, showed first term governments CAN be beaten..... But she had never stuck a knife in the back of Bligh.....
Floating voters don't trust Shorten, and the 1.58% increase was mainly palmerites and some green voters pissed off with senate deal they did with the libs.... Hence the loss of a green senator..

Wedge politics = splitting a party.

Howard wedged Labor over boat people splitting their traditional blue collar constituency and the progressive left. That ain't semantics it's definition.

Don't agree with your points above SD.

And Rudds final act was to wedge his own party with changes to leadership challenges.... "Stability".... But at what cost?

"And Rudds final act was to wedge his own party with changes to leadership challenges..."

That was three years ago. We've had two elections since then. Weren't we talking about Shorten?

"my major concern is that the general voting public will never warm to a knifer."

Turnbull?

Well that's a totally separate point, stu.... I think you know that...
Now in regards to my very first post where I wrote about "the Shorten dilemma", it of course is the dilemma for the Labor party..... I did not write about "Shorten'S dilemma"...
And when I stated "Wedged good and proper" under Point 6 (- party too scared to change leader for fear of coalition attack), it of course was referring to Labor itself.....
Labor is wedged.... In fact double wedged - politically wedged via Rudds vengeful changes against the "faceless men" (2 months before his election battle with Abbott - so no dissenters could argue - classic wedge), and these changes keep Shorten safe, and they are also metaphorically wedged into a corner via the facade of success in this election..

" We've had two elections since then"............ Ok....... How many has Shorten been leader in? 1, mate...... Just 1...... And did he not have a hand in 2013, 2010? The knife still has blood on it.....

Agree Stu, Howard did split Labor's blue collars and progressives and that is where freak shows like Palmer and Hansen have picked up votes. Blue collar workers are the salt of the earth and they have done it tough with globalisation and economic rationalism and they are angry and want/need someone to blame e.g. Brexit and the shift away from Labor here ... but IMO this move away from Labor is naive and totally misguided coz ya little Ozzie battler has more to fear from conservatives and the cross bench e.g. the massive spike in 457 visa abuses taking Australian jobs.

Its staggering that the SN commentariat want to talk about Shorten when, in all truth, its Turnbull dangling by string politically and with next to no ability to form a 3 year government with a progressive policy agenda. Labor know this as does the LNP. Turnbull is in the headlights and is a sitting duck, what he has to deal with is all down to him. Shorten and Labor with romp it in come the next election.

turd verse, same as the first

In my electorate of Kingston Labor romped in with about 2/3rds of the primary. On my way to work last week on a freezing cold morning Amanda Rishworth was standing in pouring rain on the roundabout at Pt. Noarlunga with a sign saying thank you. You would never see a Lib doing that. Labor may have lost the war but they regained a lot of ground. Imagine how well they would have done if they had a leader.

Floyd writes, "Its staggering that the SN commentariat want to talk about Shorten when, in all truth, its Turnbull dangling by string politically and with next to no ability to form a 3 year government with a progressive policy agenda. "

What's so staggering about it? Labor lost.... I've written heaps on the coalition, and will continue to do so... But I wont be a fuckn ostrich when it comes to WHY Labor lost.... I want the coalition OUT.... But Bill Shorten will never be PM of Australia (unless something totally outrageous happens) and by not dissecting why labor lost, we run the risk of Turnbull playing a "Wil Hodgman" - as in just going through the motions and remaining fairly incognito... If this happens, if he and the coalition pull back slightly and don't try to push through any radical legislation, voters will get a sense of stability, and he will pull the trigger in 2 years...... Then there's the south China sea....... We know what Howard did after 9/11..... If shit gets heavy, Turnbull will go to the polls......
If Shorten remains, there's a very real chance 8 to 9 continuous years of conservative rule....

Zip-de-Sheepster-aroo-a-do-da-da-da there will be nothing beige about the next parliament.

There will be more fireworks than a Sydney new years eve or more glitter than the mardi gras.

No way will Turnbull be able to play dead and if he remotely tries he will be scorched by the electorate.

sheepdog, "But I wont be a fuckn ostrich when it comes to WHY Labor lost"

why did labor lose in your opinion?