Australian Politics Forum
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl
General Discussion >> General Board >> AUSTRALIAN PEOPLES PARTY
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1164007195

Message started by Stu(Guest) on Nov 20th, 2006 at 5:19pm

Title: AUSTRALIAN PEOPLES PARTY
Post by Stu(Guest) on Nov 20th, 2006 at 5:19pm
Well its seems that with all the stink that is happening with labor and liberal its time that we started a new.

This is why i created this out of frustration and disregard by both party's.

So what are everyones views about this.

Title: Re: Australian peoples Party
Post by freediver on Nov 20th, 2006 at 5:52pm
check this out: http://www.ozpolitic.com/app-d.html

Title: Re: Australian peoples Party
Post by freediver on Nov 20th, 2006 at 6:00pm
this works better: http://ozpolitic.com/app-h.html

Title: Re: Australian peoples Party
Post by Stu(Guest) on Nov 21st, 2006 at 2:59pm
Thanks Freediver
the site is getting there.

Regards to The Australian peoples Party it is about you, your children their future.

If Political Party's only behave like they have a single objective then what about the rest of us.

Most Party's are made up of people from business groups and unions what about us the working class, the unemployed,disabled and so forth.

It is time that we stood up for ourselves and do what has to be done instead of just hoping and praying that this occurs.

I t would also be great to see some comments regarding the policy's that have been posted.

Also membership is there for all and that fee is very good compared to some. This also gives you the opportunity to have made the change and help with the fight

Thank You

Title: Re: Australian peoples Party
Post by Stu on Dec 10th, 2006 at 10:08am
The Australian Peoples Party is going well getting members getting bigger and stronger

We now have an Industrial Relations Policy which is real for the people.

This policy will not be posted util the party becomes registered so just to let you know it is there.

you dont have to believe but the truth and honesty will win

Stu

Title: Re: Australian peoples Party
Post by Stu on Dec 11th, 2006 at 6:11pm
I would like to say thank you to all that have emailed and put up with my persistence whilst I have been building this party.

I have found that there are many passionate and dedicated people on this forum and even though I find that I do not variable speak the same language, my comments I find are honest and truthful.

I would also like to say those that have a passion for change is great now what does come is committing yourself to it; i.e. in this case becoming a member, but only if you find that the constitution is for you. This you will have to email for.

This party should get enough members to be registered by march, one would hope but at least there are those here that know it is happening.

I may not be a flashy writer but if it is honest and truthful and without all that spin and bull anyone can read this and this is what it is all about, for all.

So I do hope to here from those that are passionate enough and also those who would like to be a candidate and this is outlined in the constitution.


So all in all I would like to say merry Christmas and have a good new year and for petes sake take care on the roads.

Thanks

Stu

Email: swulrich@bigpond.net.au
The Australian Peoples Party

For The People By The People

Title: Re: Australian peoples Party
Post by Stu on Dec 13th, 2006 at 9:06pm
I have also now set up a blog
so your comments are encouraged

and tell me whats wrong

http://australianpeoplesparty.blogspot.com/

stu

Title: Re: Australian peoples Party
Post by freediver on Dec 14th, 2006 at 8:43am
Looks good Stu, but you probably shouldn't start a sentence with and - ie "And had enough of the constant bickering...."

Also, you might want to include a link back to the party information here for those who are interested: http://www.ozpolitic.com/app/australian-peoples-party.html

Title: Re: Australian peoples Party
Post by freediver on Dec 14th, 2006 at 10:19am
Or, you could link to individual policies like so:

Aged and Disabled care policy<br />
People with Disabilities Policy<br />
<a href="http://www.ozpolitic.com/app/app-policing-crime-policy.html">Policing and Crime Policy</a><br />
<a href="http://www.ozpolitic.com/app/app-personal-responsibility-policy.html">Personal Responsibilities Policy</a><br />
<a href="http://www.ozpolitic.com/app/app-politicians-responsibility-policy.html">Politicians Responsibility Policy</a><br />
Industrial Relations Policy<br />
<a href="http://www.ozpolitic.com/app/app-veterans-affairs-policy.html">Veteran Affairs Policy</a><br />

Title: Hi Stu
Post by enviro on Jan 6th, 2007 at 8:34am
Do you have an environmental policy? Does it recommend or support alternative energy sources or mainstream, coal, gas and nuclear? Or do you intend to keep quiet on this issue?

The next election will involve Industrial and environmental policies. These policies will make or break you.

An answer for WorkPlace agreements need to be found as well as energy needs have to be answered along with a planned reduction of greenhouse emmissions. Please don't say Green Shift Tax. Green Shift Tax, like carbon tax, only hides the problem it doesn't solve it.

Title: Re: Australian peoples Party
Post by enviro on Jan 6th, 2007 at 8:39am
If you get the chance Stu could you insert your political philosophy chart in the 'Determine your political philosophy...' blog.


Thanks ;)


Title: Re: Australian peoples Party
Post by ozadmin on Jan 6th, 2007 at 12:51pm
Off topic replies have been moved to this thread: Green Tax Shift

Title: Re: Australian peoples Party
Post by Stu on Jan 8th, 2007 at 7:53pm
ozadmin done seems i am a centralist
i could have told you that

enviro

have IR policy done
Am working on enviromental trying to get this energy issue right
have solutions for other enviro issues but this energy if not right will impact on the whole package.
To get it right now means things will work easier.

Title: Re: Australian peoples Party
Post by AUShole(Guest) on Feb 25th, 2007 at 5:13pm
Stu

I have read some of your policies, and they seem to have a lot in common with One Nation and Family First. Both are populist parties, meaning they will quickly become stale and irrelevant.

With regard to your crime policy, legislation already exists to tackle most of the issues you raised. Your problem seems to be with the judiciary and politicians. I am afraid the only way to change the status quo is to rewrite the constitution of Australia, which will alter the way our democracy works.

On a more personal note, you need to do something about your script writing. OK, you have stated that you are not a great writer, but admitting a weakness is not going to cut it with voters. Look at what happened to Pauline Hanson (I am not a supporter, just an observer). You are savvy enough to set up a blog, so you should be able to at least use a spell and grammar check before you publish something.

Good luck with the APP. Although I don't agree with your views, the more choice in a democracy, the better.


Title: Re: Australian peoples Party
Post by Stu on Feb 25th, 2007 at 5:43pm
The Australian Peoples Party (tapp) have been created by the people yes thats right people who are out there.
The policing and crime policy are you blind dont you listen or talk to people.

I think i will create a policy for spelling just for you since their is nothing else for you to have a go at.

With a name like yours no wonder.

I find the most important thing is what is happening and by the way why dont you have your say about richie rudd and richie turnbull, and they represent us yeah right.

If your not tapp then your voting liberal and labor as preferences are already set.


Title: Re: Australian peoples Party
Post by Stu on Feb 25th, 2007 at 7:49pm
Until you the people decide to stand up and have a real voice then you are only wingeing.

Maybe you should sign up and stand for your own community and that takes guts and balls to fight than just winge

your choice

www.tapp.org.au

Title: Re: Australian peoples Party
Post by AUShole on Feb 25th, 2007 at 9:22pm
Stu, you have a lot to learn. Firstly, you take criticism far too personally to be in politics. Secondly, you are too tightly wound up to think logically about what you are doing. Thirdly, name calling indicates you have no substance, just a lot of hot air (whether it be directed at me, or the major parties which have really got your goat).

It seems you have already written a stack of 'policy' without even having a formal party structure or registered members. That makes you an independent. Policy should be written in consultation with the party, so that it appeals to a wider audience (i.e. so you can have candidates in multiple seats). You don't have a party, therefore you can't put it forward as its policy.

Do I talk to people? Sure, all the time.

Have you asked a copper what they think of the law? Most of them have no arguments with it. Then try justifying the action of a magistrate who just released a repeat offender with a slap on the wrist, even though there was a mountain of evidence to justify a lengthy jail term. You might be lucky to walk out of the room. How do I know this? My brother is a uniformed copper, who now spends 2/3 of his day shuffling paperwork. Get uniform away from their desks and onto the streets. Didn't see that in your policing policy.

Re your comments on Tax Avoidance and Fraud. You obviously know nothing about the ATO, ACCC or ASIC. They already have the powers you are asking for. How do I know? I have studied business law, and occasionally consult to business on corporate governance.

Health you say? My partner is a doctor. I work with doctors. I have frequent contact with health administrators. There is more than enough funding to deal with health issues. The problem is with duplication of service delivery, which gobbles up vast sums of money, and lack of qualified staff. Solve those issues and you will be the messiah of health.

At the moment you are an immature political hack, and will be eaten alive if you are fortunate to ever make your way into parliament. I doubt you will even get close.

Title: Re: Australian peoples Party
Post by Stu on Feb 26th, 2007 at 8:49am
See you have it wrong againg just look at your handle.
Policy should be created in conjunction with the people not the backroom.

Oh i am scared you have studied, i am shaking. I have studied real life.
Health well open your eyes.

A hack no passionate yes, with more balls, and guts than someone who hides behide Aushole name.

No I wont be eated but outspoken, and you should be scared of that the truth.

So bring it on, Your name says it all.

Title: Re: Australian peoples Party
Post by Stu on Feb 26th, 2007 at 8:59am
When the people stop following their masters and stand up forthemselves then they will understand.

As the 2 majors are already talking to independants there goes the voice.

I am passionate and if i am a hack what makes that of the labor party no policy, corruption,same with liberal party this is what you get for your obedience.
>:( >:( >:( >:(

Title: Re: Australian peoples Party
Post by bettsyboopy(Guest) on Mar 9th, 2007 at 12:35pm
Aushole, very suitable name by the way mate.

Your criticism is essentially that the policies are populist. What does populist actually mean? It means it's popular with the people who vote. Sounds like democracy to me Aushole.

Has there ever been a time when the existing major parties have not been populist? I think not. They watch the polls like hawks, pretend they don't and react instantly to pressure from marginal seat holders.

Sounds extremely populist to me but that's fine, it's reacting to what people want, not what Howard's scumbags call "hard decisions" which is political speak for decisions the people don't agree with or want.

Such as IR, Iraq, Health, Education, Uni fees, GST, and all the rest. What they rely on is that incoming governments will be too scared or lazy to change what has been legislated so they just add clauses and loopholes to create spaghetti.

You know all this Aushole. Now stop being one and get real. Or are you for real as you are? Who will you vote for by the way mate?

Stu is having a go, creating policy for you to comment on, add to, make suggestions and actually particpate. Does that scare you? Would that there were more like Stu willing to get off his lounge chair and have a go. Perhaps you'd prefer to convert your armchair into a "Homer" chair. You know the chair don't you? You just sit there and nature takes it's course. Beneath you.

Title: Re: Australian peoples Party
Post by aloof boof on Mar 9th, 2007 at 3:14pm
Well i'll tell you what Stu and Bettsyboopy if this brave new political party cant get its poo together to build a website that is "under consruction" and has been for a while,what hope for the real party

Title: Re: Australian peoples Party
Post by enviro on Mar 9th, 2007 at 4:47pm
BetsyBoopy
Quote:
Sounds extremely populist to me but that's fine, it's reacting to what people want, not what Howard's scumbags call "hard decisions" which is political speak for decisions the people don't agree with or want.

Such as IR, Iraq, Health, Education, Uni fees, GST, and all the rest. What they rely on is that incoming governments will be too scared or lazy to change what has been legislated so they just add clauses and loopholes to create spaghetti.

;D
Why does everyone blame Howard for health, education, IR and Uni fees on Howard when it is a State issue?

You just can't find anything to blame him for really. I suppose if you fell down a flight of stairs or got hit by a bus you'd find somehow to blame Howard for it. ::)



Title: Re: Australian peoples Party
Post by zoso on Mar 9th, 2007 at 5:28pm
My hat goes off to you for your passion mate, but things are never idealistic in reality. In fact many bold idealisms have given birth to some of the greatest evils we have known: Nazism, Stalinism etc, these things began with a kernel of thought that was essential good and pure. For instance if you really read some Marx you will see that the intention was never what came in the end, many have said that if Marx lived to see what became of his teachings he would be quite disappointed (in fact he did to a degree and to a degree he was). I have absolute faith in the good of people, but I have absolute faith in the selfishness and evils of people too.

Largely I agree - the two parties are rotting from the core and this is an issue, especially when you end up in the situation we are (arguably) in, whereby two minority representations (in real terms, I'm talking membership and activity) are majority power brokers simply because of traditional voting habits. But the answer is not in simply creating another party! The answer is really in involvement. Good politics does not happen in parliment, it begins on the street. The attitudes of the people around you have more effect on public policy than the personal opinions of the leaders. Take the David Hicks affair - 5 years it took for public opinion to sway and if it hadn't, Howard would still be sitting on it.

Really I'd love to see the abolishment of political parties altogether in favour of independent representatives, but accretion would simply occur anyway and along more subtle and insidious lines... nothing would change - besides the managerial issues would be tremendous, for instance: who gets to be minister of what? This is what it boils down to, the game is theirs, join it and you join THEIR game. Real progress is changing the game, taking it and making it different!

Really if you want to make a difference then make a difference. If you want decision making power and to be in the public spotlight then get into politics. And there's another point (oh it is quite acceptable to start a sentence with 'and' by the way, somebody said not to - but it is fine in the correct context) the 'public spotlight' part generally comes first, unknowns don't really pull votes. Unfortunately it IS a popularity contest and without being a known personality in your community then good luck.

Look there are loads of things that can be done from the ground up that WILL make more positive difference to our country than political parties ever will. A good friend of mine for instance is starting a community garden here, may not seem like much, now this community garden is going to be staffed by 'work for the dole' folk, and in turn they will be trained by the local TAFE. This is the first work for the dole project in the country that will get TAFE certificates for the dole workers (as I understand it - this is what they have been told). Now, you do this on a local level in enough places around the country and soon enough it becomes public policy. Not only that but decentralisation of food distribution is a HUUUUGE hurdle to be overcome in terms of environmental degradation. Get a community garden and market in every neighbourhood in the country and you will do more than any green tax shift could hope for, seriously.

This is how democracies really do work, and this is how they really should work! Take the power from the leaders, and put it in the hands of the people. You want green power? don't go for the policy, just MAKE IT WORK! I swear the first person who makes green power a truly economical alternative will make it happen. There is no conspiracy to destroy the environment, market forces just mean renewables are off the table. I am very interested in politics, social policy, human society and behaviour myself, but you know what I'm doing about it? I'm studying mechanical engineering because I want to be a part of the things that really make a difference. If more people... PEOPLE, had this attitude then we wouldn't even need to be bitching about our politicians, they would be our slaves the way they are supposed to be!

Title: Re: Australian peoples Party
Post by zoso on Mar 9th, 2007 at 5:32pm

enviro wrote on Mar 9th, 2007 at 4:47pm:
Why does everyone blame Howard for health, education, IR and Uni fees on Howard when it is a State issue?


Uni fees are very much a federal issue :)

Education to a degree as well, Howard has funnelled a lot of money OUT of public and into private for instance. Some might also say the problems with health right now boil down to changes to the medicare system... IR *was* a state issue but through corporations power Howard has taken it under federal control and is now very much a federal issue...

Just saying is all...

Title: Re: Australian peoples Party
Post by freediver on Mar 9th, 2007 at 5:59pm
Maybe chem eng, chemistry or biochem would be better. That appears to be where the new energy technologies are appearing. The mech stuff is just glorified windmills.

Title: Re: Australian peoples Party
Post by zoso on Mar 9th, 2007 at 6:14pm

freediver wrote on Mar 9th, 2007 at 5:59pm:
Maybe chem eng, chemistry or biochem would be better. That appears to be where the new energy technologies are appearing. The mech stuff is just glorified windmills.


Its not all in power generation mate! My major interest is transport, and possibly automated systems and such. Point is I'm doing what I like first and I like machines, chems is dull.

Title: Re: Australian peoples Party
Post by zoso on Mar 9th, 2007 at 6:18pm

freediver wrote on Mar 9th, 2007 at 5:59pm:
Maybe chem eng, chemistry or biochem would be better. That appears to be where the new energy technologies are appearing. The mech stuff is just glorified windmills.


Also, don't knock windmills - there are some amazing designs coming out that can work from 'dirty' wind at low speeds without any need for rotation to meet wind direction. Don't forget it's us mechanical engineers that study fluid mechanics - not the others! Power plants still need mechanical engineers. A small discrete windmill on the top of every building would be a good step in the right direction, even if wind isn't good for base load.

Title: Re: Australian peoples Party
Post by enviro on Mar 9th, 2007 at 9:51pm
Hi Zoso

Thanks for the update, I wasn't quiet sure on the Uni Fees side so thought I'd just throw it in. As for Howard bringing funding to private schools this would just make up for what the labor government took off them under their reign. The problem with education is at state level. How they spend and manage their money is what we should be looking into. Health, in particular hospitals, is a major state issue.

What changes to the medicare system are you talking about?

I was unaware that Howard took over IR. That might be a good thing after what Kennet did to Victoria.

It seems that Howard has the right idea, he has recognised that the States are useless and so bogged down with red tape that they can't get anything done. I notice he has had to step in to sort out the water crises for each state as well as the energy crises. I honestly believe that Howard has the best intentions for this country and will do everything in his power to build a future for us all.

He has recognised a need that a lot of Australians are now wanting to send their children to private schools.  To make this possible he has funnelled extra funding in this area.

My children will go to private school because I want them to speak English without a lebanese accent. When in Sydney, get yourself on a train at school time and you listen to all those anglo saxon children speaking with lebanese accents.. sic man.... The lebanese children should be speaking with english accents, not the other way around. the Lebanese form gangs within schools and terrorise anglo saxon children. The only way the children can be left alone is if they join them and that is what they do. Yes, this will mean the next generation will grow up accepting Lebanese as Australians but it also means that they have had to become Lebanese to achieve this.

I personally don't like the airs and graces that go with the Lebanese culture as it seems so false. The women are even worst than the blokes. All my life I have never been a rascist until the Lebanese population seemed to explode and the noticable effect it has had in this country. People say we have to accept them but, maybe they have to accept us. They tend to think their poo don't stink, very egotistical bunch. Occasionally you do meet one that is not the stereotype lebanese peasant.

:)




Title: Re: Australian peoples Party
Post by AUShole on Mar 10th, 2007 at 6:59am

Quote:
Your criticism is essentially that the policies are populist. What does populist actually mean? It means it's popular with the people who vote. Sounds like democracy to me Aushole.


Stu says he wants to change politics, to be a point of differentiation in a political sense. His policies are populist, and I really cannot see the difference between what he is posting, and the existing conservative parties (eg. Family First, National Party). Except their position is far more prescribed. I use the term populist for party policy that is popular, but without substance. One Nation is a classic example of a party that came up with policy that struck a chord with voters. Got them a long way, didn't it?

As much as I dislike the Howard government, I do give it credit for making some tough and unpopular decisions. Governing a country is not about pandering to the people, it is about doing the right thing for the interests of the nation.


Quote:
Stu is having a go, creating policy for you to comment on, add to, make suggestions and actually particpate. Does that scare you? Would that there were more like Stu willing to get off his lounge chair and have a go. Perhaps you'd prefer to convert your armchair into a "Homer" chair. You know the chair don't you? You just sit there and nature takes it's course. Beneath you.


I have no problem with having a go. There are numerous posts by me supporting Stu and his party's right to form and participate. It doesn't mean that I forego my right to disagree with the policy, which I have also pointed out is flimsy and poorly thought out. Do you really think the public is going to take anyone seriously if they don't even bother using grammar and spelling correctly?

Read Zoso's contributions, I think he puts forward a good argument about the dangers of ill thought policy.

Title: Re: Australian peoples Party
Post by AUShole on Mar 10th, 2007 at 7:07am

Quote:
Look there are loads of things that can be done from the ground up that WILL make more positive difference to our country than political parties ever will. A good friend of mine for instance is starting a community garden here, may not seem like much, now this community garden is going to be staffed by 'work for the dole' folk, and in turn they will be trained by the local TAFE. This is the first work for the dole project in the country that will get TAFE certificates for the dole workers (as I understand it - this is what they have been told). Now, you do this on a local level in enough places around the country and soon enough it becomes public policy. Not only that but decentralisation of food distribution is a HUUUUGE hurdle to be overcome in terms of environmental degradation. Get a community garden and market in every neighbourhood in the country and you will do more than any green tax shift could hope for, seriously.


Excellent point, Zoso. People should look at taking it upon themselves to make a difference, not just cast a vote and then expect the government to do all the hard work. I think Australia has become lazy and complacent, and is in danger of becoming as isolated and insular as the USA.

Title: Re: Australian peoples Party
Post by AUShole on Mar 10th, 2007 at 7:15am

Quote:
My children will go to private school because I want them to speak English without a lebanese accent. When in Sydney, get yourself on a train at school time and you listen to all those anglo saxon children speaking with lebanese accents.. sic man.... The lebanese children should be speaking with english accents, not the other way around. the Lebanese form gangs within schools and terrorise anglo saxon children. The only way the children can be left alone is if they join them and that is what they do. Yes, this will mean the next generation will grow up accepting Lebanese as Australians but it also means that they have had to become Lebanese to achieve this.


Welcome to multiculturalism.

Your position is precisely the same as the proponents of the White Australia policy, except that back then, everyone was going to become slanty eyed and speak like a chink.

Title: Re: Australian peoples Party
Post by zoso on Mar 10th, 2007 at 1:48pm
Enviro, you really seem to have way too much faith in the Howard government. Explain to me why the taxpayer should offer assistance to privately funded schools? This is supposed to be a free market, I don't get assistance from the government if I want to run a business! why on earth should they?! Private school subsidies from the government have done nothing to help the 'average' person to get their kids into private schools, this is government spin, fees have not changed and in some cases they have increased. The Howard government policy toward private schools is corporate welfare at best, specially targeted corporate welfare towards religious interest groups at worst... nothing more.

Have some faith in the public education system, we do really have a good one. If I ever have children there is no chance they are going to private school no matter how much money I have at the time. I only remember to vividly the disgraceful attitudes that the private school kids in my area had, without a doubt they were the most arrogant, rude and poorly behaved kids around. Absolutely without a doubt. Public schools do fare well against private in standardised testing too. Now if everyone who can afford to walks away from public schools then what incentive do the government have to fund them properly? We will have the American system which is an utter failure. It is feel good desire for the illusion of middle class affluence that drives people to put their kids in private schools, nothing to do with quality of education because that argument holds no water, curriculum is the same for all. Personally I do not wish to live in a society where education is for those who can afford it! Horizontal distribution of knowledge and ideas is what promotes innovation and progress, it is how we got where we are today. I can tell you for a fact that it was the break down of guild-based monopolies on information in the British empire that spurred the industrial revolution, going back to that kind of system will cause us to stagnate and fall behind the world standard. Knowledge and information are not commodities to be traded if you want progress!

Now as for accents, the Australian English accent is widely regarded to have been influenced by indigenous natives. The American English accent is hugely influenced by the Irish as well as their own indigenous natives. Its swings and roundabouts mate and the way of the modern world.

You were unaware of the Howard government taking control of IR? This is work choices mate! The states took the federal government to the high court over this issue as they claimed it was a constitutional violation and yet the court ruled in favor of the federal government. Really it's not that silly to have IR at a federal level but the work choices legislation is terrible stuff. It is so complex with such a volume of legal definitions and conditions that few lawyers can understand it properly, let alone employers and employees. There are some really stupid requirements in there too that have upset big players in the business world.

Medicare well I'm not up on the details of that but as I understand since the introduction of the medicare safety net extra red tape has been the cause of many doctors putting a stop to bulk billing. You may not notice it in the city but in the country we are facing a serious crisis. Again I don't understand the details but I do know that a lot of those began exactly when Howard introduced the medicare safety net before the last election. I don't doubt that the state government has its hand in this too but bulk billing is part of the medicare system as I understand it and that is certainly a federal issue.

Now if you got through all that thanks for putting up with my ramblings! :)

Title: Re: Australian peoples Party
Post by zoso on Mar 10th, 2007 at 1:58pm

AUShole wrote on Mar 10th, 2007 at 7:07am:
I think Australia has become lazy and complacent, and is in danger of becoming as isolated and insular as the USA.


This is so true and I couldn't have put it better. It was innovation and open mindedness coupled with die-hard work ethic that got Australia to where it is today, and it is these things that will move us forward.

Turn off the TV and go out for a walk! Look at your surroundings and engage in your community :)

Our attitudes are beautifully summed up by this line: "Vicariously I live while the whole world dies"

Title: Re: Australian peoples Party
Post by AUShole on Mar 10th, 2007 at 4:10pm

Quote:
"Vicariously I live while the whole world dies"


Are you a Tool fan?

Title: Re: Australian peoples Party
Post by DonaldTrump on Mar 10th, 2007 at 4:34pm

Quote:
Welcome to multiculturalism.  


Multiculturalism blows, Aushole.



Quote:
Your position is precisely the same as the proponents of the White Australia policy, except that back then, everyone was going to become slanty eyed and speak like a chink.


Funny, I could have sworn several suburbs in Melbourne fit that description.  ::) Ie. Footscray/Richmond.

So I guess those 'doomsdayers' were partly right, hey Aushole?  ;)


Title: Re: Australian peoples Party
Post by aloof boof on Mar 10th, 2007 at 4:56pm

ex-member DonaldTrump wrote on Mar 10th, 2007 at 4:34pm:

Quote:
Welcome to multiculturalism.  


Multiculturalism blows, Aushole.


[quote]Your position is precisely the same as the proponents of the White Australia policy, except that back then, everyone was going to become slanty eyed and speak like a chink.


Funny, I could have sworn several suburbs in Melbourne fit that description.  ::) Ie. Footscray/Richmond.

So I guess those 'doomsdayers' were partly right, hey Aushole?  ;)

[/quote]
you left out a lot of our citizens seem to be getting busted bringing back smack from Vietnam and Cambodia latley.Guess where they all come from?

Title: Re: Australian peoples Party
Post by zoso on Mar 10th, 2007 at 7:53pm

AUShole wrote on Mar 10th, 2007 at 4:10pm:

Quote:
"Vicariously I live while the whole world dies"


Are you a Tool fan?


Maybe... but I'm glad someone knew what I was on about ;)

Title: Re: Australian peoples Party
Post by Stu on Mar 15th, 2007 at 7:36pm
more policies and new tommorrow afternoon friday also news

Stu

Title: Re: Australian peoples Party
Post by Stu on Mar 16th, 2007 at 9:56am
pollie superanuation and perks are in the sights of The Australian Peoples Party

Do you really want change
sign up become a member

www.tapp.org.au

Title: Re: Australian peoples Party
Post by Stu on Mar 16th, 2007 at 3:17pm
Policies posted check news as well

www.tapp.org.au

Title: Re: Australian peoples Party
Post by Stu on Mar 17th, 2007 at 12:23pm
The people have given up without a fight even before it has started

www.tapp.org.au

Title: Re: Australian peoples Party
Post by freediver on Mar 19th, 2007 at 6:57pm
You're not throwing in the towel already are you?

Title: Re: Australian peoples Party
Post by Stu on Mar 20th, 2007 at 2:25pm
This party needs members and candidates

you can eith play the protest vote or you can go for change

thats it

www.tapp.org.au

Title: Corruption Deciet and Lies
Post by Stu(Guest) on Dec 3rd, 2006 at 12:20pm
It seems that the political parties are both trying to see who can privatise Australia the quickest.
Labor winges about privatisation but started it with the CBA and qantas.
There needs to be a political change and a big one one not just lib or labor but something real for the people.
You can tell that it is all about their parties as they place people from other areas into your own to represent you,what nobody in your area good enought for yourselves.

labor cant keep their hands clean always back stabbing and fighting and liberals not really having a royal commision just like labor, they should just join each other, they dont represent us but only themselves.

These parties know this and treat us with contempt, treat us like idiots as people keep following them blindly.

It is time to wake up and have a good look Australia and when then happens you will cry, just like our Anzacs in their place on what these 2 parties have done.

Title: Re: Corruption Deciet and Lies
Post by freediver on Dec 3rd, 2006 at 3:23pm
What are your views on the role of government vs the private sector? What goods or services should the government provide, and which should be left to the marketplace?

Title: Re: Corruption Deciet and Lies
Post by Stu(Guest) on Dec 3rd, 2006 at 4:54pm

freediver wrote on Dec 3rd, 2006 at 3:23pm:
What are your views on the role of government vs the private sector? What goods or services should the government provide, and which should be left to the marketplace?


At this rate all will be gone to private then we all will be paying a high cost.

Hospitals, health care, transport,schools,care these type of services should be government .
Will keep jobs secure and also keep those from private pushing fees through the roof.Our economy will only deal with so much so there needs to be some governance. The point is are you happy with companies charging what they like and if you need it can you afford to pay.
The market place can still run but there will be that safety of nowing that someone isnt just looking after shareholders but the people.

Hope that helped

Title: Re: Corruption Deciet and Lies
Post by freediver on Dec 4th, 2006 at 10:15am
What about telecommunications, air travel and banking?

Title: Re: Corruption Deciet and Lies
Post by Stu(Guest) on Dec 4th, 2006 at 11:52am

freediver wrote on Dec 4th, 2006 at 10:15am:
What about telecommunications, air travel and banking?


Well i suppose you could listen to labor but they already knew that privatisation means loss of jobs,loss of rights and pay
and they labor and liberals are still selling off our public assets.

With banking how do you like your bank fees,and more fees and bank profits
this has to change and will if we ever win as you pointed out these are now about profit and share holders not us.
Air Travel that could be fixed with a new carrier and also banking telecomunications well that could involve buy back but would cost.

Or are you just asking for dear old rudd the scud now

Title: Re: Corruption Deciet and Lies
Post by freediver on Dec 4th, 2006 at 12:02pm
I don't pay any bank fees. They are for suckers.

So you think the government should get back into those businesses? Or should not have sold them in the first place? What other businesses should the government be running?

Title: Re: Corruption Deciet and Lies
Post by Stu(Guest) on Dec 4th, 2006 at 12:26pm

freediver wrote on Dec 4th, 2006 at 12:02pm:
I don't pay any bank fees. They are for suckers.

So you think the government should get back into those businesses? Or should not have sold them in the first place? What other businesses should the government be running?


ok
so you dont pay bank fees how about all those that do.
there is no real regulation.
some companies can still be owned by govt but as an asset so therefore can be told we dont need to make that much profit if any but to for better competitive pricing.
get it.
The business we should have as private are those that should have been.
what is going to happen to schools and hospitals those that can pay will be treated and those who cant wont.
that is a couple our states would sell of local councils if they could.
thats labor locking after the people and jobs

Title: Re: Corruption Deciet and Lies
Post by freediver on Dec 4th, 2006 at 12:34pm
The business we should have as private are those that should have been.

I guess what I'm trying to get at is what is your underlying philosophy for judging what should be private and what should be government run?

Title: Re: Corruption Deciet and Lies
Post by Stu(Guest) on Dec 4th, 2006 at 12:41pm

freediver wrote on Dec 4th, 2006 at 12:34pm:
The business we should have as private are those that should have been.

I guess what I'm trying to get at is what is your underlying philosophy for judging what should be private and what should be government run?



If it is an essential service then we should keep hold

If we place into private then they have a monopoly on pricing and will then become services for who can afford

Title: Re: Corruption Deciet and Lies
Post by freediver on Dec 4th, 2006 at 12:53pm
There are a lot of services that could be considered essential. Air travel would not be at the top of the list.

'They' won't have a monopoly because 'they' are not one entity.

Title: Re: Corruption Deciet and Lies
Post by Stu(Guest) on Dec 4th, 2006 at 3:19pm
Maybe about air travel but then again in this new age people still need to travel large distances and australia is a large country

It would also be good for tourism

Title: Re: Corruption Deciet and Lies
Post by freediver on Dec 4th, 2006 at 3:33pm
So how do you judge what is an 'essential' service - ie a service that the government should provide? Maybe you should just give us a list.

Title: Re: Corruption Deciet and Lies
Post by Stu(Guest) on Dec 4th, 2006 at 5:24pm

freediver wrote on Dec 4th, 2006 at 3:33pm:
So how do you judge what is an 'essential' service - ie a service that the government should provide? Maybe you should just give us a list.


Actually this is easy

Take a look at the last 3 lines of the APP constitution

Title: Re: Corruption Deciet and Lies
Post by freediver on Dec 4th, 2006 at 5:47pm
Can you be a bit more specific? Every politician would claim that their policies are in the best interests of the public. How would you judge what is in the people's interests? What is it about some indistries and not others that means the government should get involved in them?

Title: Re: Corruption Deciet and Lies
Post by Stu(Guest) on Dec 4th, 2006 at 8:00pm

freediver wrote on Dec 4th, 2006 at 5:47pm:
Can you be a bit more specific? Every politician would claim that their policies are in the best interests of the public. How would you judge what is in the people's interests? What is it about some indistries and not others that means the government should get involved in them?


ok

you email me at swulrich@bigpond.net.au and just be honest

i could use somebody like you on my side think about it and remember be honest

Title: Re: Corruption Deciet and Lies
Post by freediver on Dec 5th, 2006 at 9:45am
How about I tell you what I think instead?

Private business should be expected to provide all goods and services, with a few key exceptions - two that I can think of at the moment.

1) Government should supply a service where it would be immoral to leave it to the whims of the free market. For example, it would be immoral to allow a child to forgoe a basic education because their parents cannot afford it. It would be immoral to allow someone to die because they cannot afford basic medical treatment. What we define as 'basic' is where the real debate is as both can be a bottomless pit of expense. Societies tend to spend a large chunk of their GDP on health and education, whether they are poor or rich.

2) Where the market will inevitably fail to provide the 'ideal' level of service and price because it does not meet the assumptions usually taken in economic theory, and where the government is able to do a better job. This is usually the case where the nature of the market leads to a single supplier. For example, we only need one of most road, rail, water, sewerage, power services etc and it would be inefficient to have two suppliers in the same area. You would either end up with twice the infrastructure needed or a monopoly provider charging exorbitant rates. Even with public service inefficiency the government would still give the public a better deal. There are other situations that tend to lead to monopolies where the government could not provide a better service. IT is a good example. The investment needed compared to the marginal cost of a product is large - not because a lot of infrastructure and town planning is needed, but because the marginal cost is almost zero. For example, MS Windows would have cost a fortune to make, but printing another CD for a customer only costs a few cents. This is why microsoft (almost) has a monopoly. The government (even the US government) could not provide a better service because the industry moves so quickly. It doesn't operate in the same way we expect government to. Telecommunications is moving in this direction.

Whether a service is likely to be supplied by a monopoly provider can change with time. The first bank in a new country, the first airline, the first phone company is likely to only be a monopoly provider for a long time, but eventually the market will be big enough for more competitors. This is why the government set up telecom, qantas, CBA etc, and why it later sold them.

Also, even if the government is providing a service, it should contract out most of the work on a competitive basis and carefully separate out those parts of the industry that are best supplied by industry. The government should be in control of the power lines etc, but it should contract out the job of building them and should create a competitive market palce for the supply of power.

Of course all of this does not tell you whether we should be selling telstra, but it does give you a framework for making the decision.

Title: Re: Corruption Deciet and Lies
Post by Stu(Guest) on Dec 6th, 2006 at 8:39am
It looks like we lost something.

If we can bring about stabilisation and growth with public companies then this should be done

also when government sell something it is usually to fund something

So what need are needed

transport,health,education,custom,policing,defence

Maybe we could look at something diferent than telstra or a buy back

The point also is we should look after ourselves first and ensure we are self sufficiant other wise if we require to pay more and import what happens if they say no more

Title: Re: Corruption Deciet and Lies
Post by Jolanda Challita(Guest) on Dec 7th, 2006 at 6:15pm
I think that the reason that our Government wants to privatise everything is so that they cannot be held accountable for the damage that they have done and they don’t have to admit to their failures.

It will all be covered up.

They may as well sell it because what they do now is they contract their services to the private sector and that means that you cannot get information from the private sector under the FOI Act and you cannot get information from the Private Sector under the Privacy Act as the Act doesn't cover contracts with the Government.  They can do whatever they want and not have to answer to anyone.

We need to have accountability in Government.   They set the standard and the culture.  People learn by example and the examples that our leaders set are atrocious.

It doesn't take a genius to work out what direction things keep heading - led by our leaders.

Title: Re: Corruption Deciet and Lies
Post by Stu(Guest) on Dec 7th, 2006 at 6:28pm
your dead right

and then they winge about job losses

they liberal and labor take it as they are gods as no one will challange them

oh well still need about 400 people for a registered party

have a look at my policys

also now i have an IR policy but only giving that one to members
cant have it falling into the wrong hands
not that one anyway

Title: Re: Corruption Deciet and Lies
Post by freediver on Dec 7th, 2006 at 6:35pm
You need 500 right? I was looking into that a while ago. So that means you already have 100 people. That's a pretty good start. Have you had any enquiries come in through this site?

Title: Re: Corruption Deciet and Lies
Post by Stu(Guest) on Dec 7th, 2006 at 7:42pm
no not as yet but the hits on this plus the other look good but only time will tell

patience and persistance will do it

not like the others

i for one am not going to buy members

once they work out i am actually fair dink should get going

thanks fd

Title: Re: Corruption Deciet and Lies
Post by Jolanda Challita(Guest) on Dec 7th, 2006 at 7:56pm
I like your ideas on law and order.  I have 4 children, two are teenagers.  One is a 16 year old son and the other is a 15 year old daughter.  Do you have any idea how difficult it makes it for parents to enforce rules and discipline when there appears to be no reasonable/respectable moral standard or  law and order is not being enforced?  

Adults need to enforce higher standards and legislate personal responsibility and there has to be consequences and/or rewards otherwise people won't care.

I believe that there is a reason why the laws are so lax and that is to protect the Politicians/bureaucrats!   You have to remember that Laws are made by those in power, to protect those in and with power!  

The first change that needs to happen in politics is in the way the system deals with and handles complaints and allegations so as to be in a position to make change.  The process that they have set up is designed top to cover up and protect the reputation of the Government and those in power.   It needs to be stopped as it feeds and creates bullies and damages alot of good people.  

The ordinary person that complains is being denied procedural fairness and natural justice.  The  people they complain about are the ones that handle and deal with thier own complaints and their word is always believed on face value - innocent until proven guilty!  

I wonder what your policies would be on Education?   I have had enough of people working in Governments using and abusing their power.  

Education is my area of focus and interest.  Law and Order running a close second.   If you have uneducated and wild people in the world it can only ever cause problems.

The current Governments seem intent on making the life of the ordinary person aggressive and  difficult.  

Title: Re: Corruption Deciet and Lies
Post by Stu(Guest) on Dec 7th, 2006 at 8:28pm
Still going with ed as also have children one which has a disability.
Have been around to schools and found the teachers are not helpful
didnt want to give any veiws
so you ideas would be appreciated.
also you would have seen both of the reponsibilities policies.

my email if you like also have a good read of the constitution nothing you would have seen before.

stu

Title: Re: Corruption Deciet and Lies
Post by macsporan on Dec 15th, 2006 at 1:45pm
I think that the government should be responsible for economic management, all communications, housing, and infrastructure development.

The chief problem is that we have too many governments in this country.

I would like to see the States abolished and the Federal government assume responsibility for these things.

This would at least prevent the constant dodging of responsibility that we see today. At best we'd actually get things done.

Title: Re: Corruption Deciet and Lies
Post by Stu on Dec 15th, 2006 at 7:37pm
Yes you are right about being over governed but this will not be changed unless a referendum is held.

Then we will find out that one.

I have also noticed about a republic well that will be referendum as well.

Change can happen but only by those who want to make it.

Title: Re: Corruption Deciet and Lies
Post by freediver on Dec 16th, 2006 at 10:41am
But what about balancing power? Don't you think it's dangerous to concentrate power into the hands of too few people? It is a bit frustrating for the state and federal governments to blame each other for every problem and take credit when things go well, but at least we have a bunch of people in each state whose full time job it is to point out the flaws in the federal government's policies. Without state governments the federal government would get away with ten times what it does today, and that would be a lot more 'inefficient' for our society than state governments.

Title: Re: Corruption Deciet and Lies
Post by Stu on Dec 16th, 2006 at 1:45pm
Well this is what labor and liberal want.

yes and no but would sugest to have a law in place to exact over enthusiasm for this.

It would also save the tax payer millions of dollars which could be better spent on facilities.
You could still have aa public board in states to manage but not the waste we have now.

Title: Re: Corruption Deciet and Lies
Post by ozadmin on Dec 18th, 2006 at 1:54pm
Off topic replies have been moved to This Thread

Title: Re: Corruption Deciet and Lies
Post by freediver on Dec 19th, 2006 at 12:02pm
I have split this into a separate thread on water policy. Macsporan, you are welcome to copy that first post from the split thread back in here, as most of it wasn't about water.

Is everyone OK with the thread split, or would you prefer I didn't do that?

Title: Qld seeks partner for transport projects
Post by freediver on Feb 26th, 2007 at 5:59pm
What do you think of this Stu?

http://www.smh.com.au/news/Business/Qld-seeks-partner-for-transport-projects/2007/02/26/1172338538617.html

The Queensland government wants the private sector to help deliver two of the biggest transport projects ever planned in the state.

The government advertised nationally on Monday for expressions of interest to deliver the proposed Airport Link underground toll road and the Windsor-to-Kedron section of the proposed Northern Busway, both in Brisbane.

Title: Re: Corruption Deciet and Lies
Post by Stu on Feb 26th, 2007 at 6:52pm
Hasnt labor learnt anything

Title: Re: Corruption Deciet and Lies
Post by Stu on Feb 28th, 2007 at 11:30am
Labor doesnt have a clue, they have their blinders on to corruption throught the whole country from state to federal.
If they win the federal election what happens to the people, we get screwed due to they way labor does business.

www.tapp.org.au

Its time to stop your obedience and compliance to your masters as you have a choice

Title: Re: Corruption Deciet and Lies
Post by Aussie Nationalist on Feb 28th, 2007 at 10:48pm
As a Nationalist, my opinion is all public utilitys should be owned and run by the government.
Examples are;

*The railway system- passenger, freight, permanent way, maintanance and customer service.
*The airline- passenger, freight, air ports, maintanence and customer service.
*Telecommunications- this includes telstra and the ABC.
*Shipping- ports, ships.
*The postal service.
*ALL health services.
*ALL education systems.

Title: Re: Corruption Deciet and Lies
Post by AUShole on Mar 3rd, 2007 at 1:01pm

Quote:
*The railway system- passenger, freight, permanent way, maintanance and customer service.
*The airline- passenger, freight, air ports, maintanence and customer service.
*Telecommunications- this includes telstra and the ABC.
*Shipping- ports, ships.
*The postal service.
*ALL health services.
*ALL education systems.


Nasho, I agree with you on the last 2. The rest are best left to government regulation, not direct ownership.

Title: Re: Corruption Deciet and Lies
Post by freediver on Mar 3rd, 2007 at 6:39pm
I was going to disagree on the education one, but decided to start a new thread instead:

http://ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1172911103

Title: Re: Corruption Deciet and Lies
Post by sense(Guest) on Mar 3rd, 2007 at 7:02pm
So you're all agreed. The government should own and run all health services. Really. So I'd have to join a government queue to get my teeth and eyes seen to. You want to ban me from paying a private doctor/nurse/dentist/chiropractor/optomotrist. These are all to be owned and run by the government. I'm not asking for money - just the freedom to pay a professional to do a job for me. Where are to trying to take us? Cuba or North Korea?

Title: Re: Corruption Deciet and Lies
Post by freediver on Mar 3rd, 2007 at 7:15pm
No we're not all agreed.

Title: Re: Corruption Deciet and Lies
Post by sense(Guest) on Mar 3rd, 2007 at 10:06pm
Apologies freediver - I mistakenly understood your disension regarding education to be approval for the others. So its just Aussie Nat and the new party that wants to ban my making a private arrangement with another free individual eg doctor/dentist etc.

Title: Re: Corruption Deciet and Lies
Post by Aussie Nationalist on Mar 3rd, 2007 at 11:57pm
My point was, lets take for example the railways;

Freight services subsidise suburban and long distance passenger trains thus keeping the fares low.(notice the price rises since the sale of freight corp,v/line freight and national rail)

The privatisation of permanent way and infrastucture has led to cost cutting which causes more breakdowns which equals delays and even accidents.

as for the others, im still waiting for the FIRST EVER Qantas plane to fall out of the sky due to failure caused by cost cutting in maintenance.

The others arent so worrying but how do you feel about poor service?

Note-  Private medical systems have never been government owned- sorry for the omission.

Title: Australian Peoples Party Policy's
Post by Stu on Dec 16th, 2006 at 1:48pm
So I take most have seen the policy's but what do you think about them. It is good to know people are reading but comment is supported.

Also any other issues you have about australian politics

Title: Re: Australian Peoples Party Policy's
Post by freediver on Jan 6th, 2007 at 4:27pm
How about this for your personal responsiblities policy. I know it isn't an Australian example, but we aren't that far behind the US (we are the second most litigious society I think). $180 000 is rediculous for only three weeks. I would do it voluntarily for a fraction of that. Plus she obviosuly bears part of the blame for the situation. Some compensation is obviously justified given that they could have saved her the three weeks behind bars just by opening it up and sniffing it - assuming she told them what it was.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Woman-settles-over-flourfilled-condoms/2007/01/06/1167777309624.html

A US college student imprisoned for three weeks for trying to take flour-filled condoms onto an airplane has settled her lawsuit against the US city of Philadelphia for $180,000, a city spokesman said.

Title: Re: Australian Peoples Party Policy's
Post by Stu on Jan 7th, 2007 at 7:26pm
Your right what she did was attempt to expose something but this is how some do it.

It was her who was in the wrong and she knew that so under the APP policy she would have spent a bit more time and no compo.

Her actions where stupid and how do drug runners do it maybe she was just a decoy.

Title: Flour
Post by enviro on Jan 7th, 2007 at 8:56pm
Or maybe the police swapped it over?

Was 3 weeks prison justified for a practical joke?

Title: People Power Party
Post by freediver on Jan 8th, 2007 at 3:00pm
Stu do you know anything about this 'people power' party? Are their policies similar to yours?

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/People-Power-expels-Crikeys-Mayne/2007/01/08/1168104901380.html

A drunken attack by News Limited reporter Glenn Milne on Crikey journalist Stephen Mayne was the death knell for the relationship between Mr Mayne and political party People Power.

Mr Mayne, a co-founder of the party, was kicked out on Sunday night when board members voted unanimously to expel him.

"This decision represents a clean break by People Power from any association with Crikey and Stephen Mayne, and a rejection by the party of the undergraduate, not-quite-grown-up, let's-sit-on-the-fence-and-throw-stones view of the world with which Stephen is associated," People Power president Vern Hughes said.

Title: Re: Australian Peoples Party Policy's
Post by Stu on Jan 8th, 2007 at 4:34pm
Hi FD
what i see as people power you could say like the liberal and labor party
Pretty much literally give accounts to the people who would then go shopping for their education medical and so on.
It boils down to complete privitisation of the system.

So if you have a medically problem which pops up and you dont have enough money
get the idea, ho big is your wallet.

Yes looked at their policies and thats what i got from it, they might shout we are for the people but really big business.

The Australian Peoples Policy and theirs not even close.

If you had noticed with the APP Policy it is people focused with people outcomes with the intention of reducing waste but solving those problems straight away and not when its election time.

Like the IR policy getting it checked but it is good. Have quite a bit of reference material to add but otherwise the policy itself is a go.

By the way hope that answered your question.

Title: Double payout!
Post by freediver on Feb 15th, 2007 at 4:45pm
Here's another one for you Stu:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Man-wins-scallop-fall-defamation-case/2007/02/15/1171405359656.html

A man who sued a shopping centre after slipping on a potato scallop has won a case against a Sydney newspaper that labelled him a serial litigant and exposed him to "ridicule".

The then 57-year-old sued Winston Hills Mall over the incident in June 1998 that left him requiring the use of a wheelchair due to bouts of paralysis.

The NSW Supreme Court jury found the two articles had defamed Mr Sheehan by carrying the imputation he had acted dishonestly.

Title: Re: Australian Peoples Party Policy's
Post by DonaldTrump on Feb 15th, 2007 at 5:27pm
Here's a good idea: Scrap Multicultualism.

Title: Re: Australian Peoples Party Policy's
Post by Stu on Feb 16th, 2007 at 7:34am
Maybe you should have asked

and also maybe you should join up and also become a candidate or is this just talk

Title: Re: Australian Peoples Party Policy's
Post by Stu on Feb 19th, 2007 at 1:45pm
DT multiculturism is a nuisance as it does split the community and is why i dont discuss this as my policy for it is removal.

Title: Re: Australian Peoples Party Policy's
Post by Aussie Nationalist on Feb 19th, 2007 at 7:09pm
Stu. I'd like to join up and become a candidate. I agree with everything thats said.
I cant access the constitution and membership form as i dont have the program for it.
could you email them to me?

australiannationalist@yahoo.com.au

Newcastle is a fair distance from sydney but i dont mind to travel. only takes 2 hours.
Perhaps,if im accepted i could open a sydney branch?

Title: Re: Australian Peoples Party Policy's
Post by freediver on Feb 19th, 2007 at 7:15pm
You can get a html (web) version of the constitution here. It may be old.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/app/app-constitution.html

The membership form in pdf is here:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/app/app-membership-form.pdf

You can get a free pdf reader here:

http://www.adobe.com/products/reader/

Title: Re: Australian Peoples Party Policy's
Post by spacscilib on Feb 19th, 2007 at 7:49pm
Stu,

I read the constitution and was a bit concerned that it read like most other major party's constitutions. It has the usual member - branch - state - federal relationship with votes of the general members not counting for preselection but rather votes of their representatives (ie Branch president and secretary - i may be wrong there) counting. In a way, you are just perpetuating the system used by the major parties - and will end up with the same political animals becoming selected ie those who can control the most branches and are buddies with the higher-ups get selected.

What I would like to see is a pre-selection mechanism that operates on-line. People get a vote towards a candidate based on their geographical distance from the candidate. In this way, if a candidate had strong local support but weak national support they still had a chance - but if enough people were interested nationally their 'diminished' votes may be enough to sway the outcome. In this way candidates could campaign via the web/email and still have a chance - based on the quality of their work - not based on how many branches they have visited and stacked.

I also find the idea of policies a bit perverse - this is not just for you but all parties. The major parties seem to have policies designed to be fashionable with the middle-ground, and yours appear to be the same. But what is the end goal? I get the idea of what you are saying - to build a fair equitable state for all Australians. But everyone is offering that. It seems that parties morph and evolve over time, taking on characteristics of each other as they realise that they must adapt or lose part of their support-base.

What we need is something that can capture the public's imagination. And not just a set of policies, but proposing a set of fundamentals upon which the policies are based. As you may have guessed, one of my fundamentals is personal freedom and personal responsibilty. Also, I think in order to be wealthy as we are now we need abundant clean energy. Perhaps that will come at some environmental cost - or someone won't like the costs involved? Perhaps I am a pragmatist in that regard - if the best site for a wind-power site was in a national park then I would say fine - plomp it right in the middle. There has to be give and take if we are to achive goals, and the animals and trees and greenies can have the other 99.5% of the park that is left untouched.

Perhaps it would be best if you explained your politics, not as policies but in fundamentals, and then we work up to policies from there. Meanwhile I will read any new articles as they appear. I was a member once of one of the major parties and found other members thoroughly dis-interested in any such sort of self-investigation, It was all about controlling the branches and getting selected for a safe seat.


Title: Re: Australian Peoples Party Policy's
Post by Stu on Feb 19th, 2007 at 8:23pm
Hi will post more as i read through this

but regards to selection re read about candidates
you will find that this doesnt happen
also with votes they are from the community and this happens if more than 1 candidate.

With reference to policy remember i am actually a people person and i am fed up with the other pollie parties so created this.

Policies are actually by the people for the people as being ex army having a disabled daughter, It happened one night watching aca and was about a family having trouble and the mp wouldnt see them, genuine case but a mp should be able to act.

So these policies have been looked at by people out there already adjusted and fixed to tidy them up, not to make them more readable or acceptable but to fix the problems.

If this party manages to get its numbers and several candidates then we have a start not to play politics like the others but when an idea is brought up is it good or bad, if good i would vote yes and the same for bad so this is the deference and this is how i expect the others to do vote as they see it not me or anybody else not even the party but to do the right thing.

If you have a go at me about vet affairs its not about me that when 15 months ago it is more
it is about doing what is right
it is also about respect.
hey dont forget you are and everyone else is quite happy to post on the forum on my site, but keep to content.
Much prefer debate how to fix than who made the problem.

Title: Re: Australian Peoples Party Policy's
Post by Stu on Feb 19th, 2007 at 8:27pm
Enviro policy this is a good one many ideas
so come on over and will throw them around at each other.

What this party is about is us your comments like many others have been used ask ross.

This is what should happen but doesnt and this is what makes this a whole lot better.
like i told ross i have already spent 20 billion and can reduce co2 emmisions by the minimum of 30% in about 3 years now that is government doing something and at a min cost to the people.

Title: Re: Australian Peoples Party Policy's
Post by Stu on Feb 22nd, 2007 at 7:30pm
whats suprises me is the amount of debate about nothing

multiculturism what a nuisance

light globes

water well that is important

what can we better do for enviro issues

Look i have given you an option and have a say on how to fix things, or even become a candidate but seems that there really are no takers for real change.

www.tapp.org.au

Title: Re: Australian Peoples Party Policy's
Post by Aussie Nationalist on Feb 22nd, 2007 at 10:21pm
Well what else do you want?
Returned soldiers and police issues are a no brainer for a nationalist, multiculturism is the BIGGEST challenge that faces us. and so is every other issue concerning our environment.
Mate, you are 42, i am 24, you'll be dead by the time anything comes along to destroy our way of life, the thing is, i'll still be here. so take that into account and dont be so selfish.

Title: Re: Australian Peoples Party Policy's
Post by Stu on Feb 23rd, 2007 at 12:20pm
you may only be 24 now so what is going to happen in 3 years 6 years you will be saying i am only 30 and the same problems will exist for you and your aged group.


stu

Title: Qld Libs introduce 'good Samaritan' bill
Post by freediver on Mar 7th, 2007 at 6:50pm
http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Qld-Libs-introduce-good-Samaritan-bill/2007/03/07/1173166762470.html

Queensland's coalition has introduced a bill to allow "good Samaritans" who help people in emergencies to avoid the threat of legal action.

Opposition Leader Jeff Seeney said the private member's bill would amend the Queensland's Civil Liability Act 2003 to provide legal protection to people who act in good faith to assist those in distress.

"Currently, the community is, in the large, cautious about assisting others in need because of the fear about being accused of causing further injury and in turn exposing themselves to legal liability," Mr Seeney told parliament.

"Although there has been no successful litigation against good Samaritans in Queensland to date, the threat is there," he said.

"The Queensland coalition's laws seek to remove this threat and bring Queensland's civil liability laws into line with other states such as Victoria and Western Australia."



Woman granted $1.1m after Canberra crash

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Woman-granted-11m-after-Canberra-crash/2007/07/06/1183351438678.html

A woman involved in an accident so minor that her car wasn't even damaged has been granted more than $1.1 million in compensation for injuries.

Supreme Court judge Justice Ken Crispin awarded $1.148 million to Canberra woman Judith Victoria Vaughan as a result of the impact which occurred in the Canberra suburb of Fadden on May 4, 2000.

"She said she was sort of a bit dazed really and it wasn't until a few minutes afterwards that she became aware that her neck was hurting, that she was getting a headache and she had numbness around her mouth and the tip of her tongue," Justice Crispin's judgment said.

Title: Animal Welfare
Post by Stu on Feb 26th, 2007 at 6:55pm
Well here we go.
The Australian peoples Party has been and will have a Animal Welfare policy within the next 2 weeks

should be rather interesting as this policy will also bring jobs back where they belong Australia.

www.tapp.org.au

:) :) :)

Title: Re: Animal Welfare
Post by Stu on Feb 27th, 2007 at 6:14pm
You think this is a load of crock wait until you see the immigration policy


Title: Re: Animal Welfare
Post by mantra on Feb 27th, 2007 at 6:53pm
Your animal welfare policy sounds interesting Stu - I will certainly have a look when it's ready, so don't forget to let us know.

What I really would like to see is the cessation of live exports.  This would have to be the most cruel and inhumane industry we have ever conducted.  It was stopped under the previous ALP, but resumed when Howard came to power.

Title: Re: Animal Welfare
Post by Aussie Nationalist on Feb 27th, 2007 at 7:43pm
Immigration policy! i wanna see that. 8-)
Also how about a repatriation policy. [smiley=thumbsup.gif]

Title: Re: Animal Welfare
Post by Stu on Feb 27th, 2007 at 8:22pm
The animal welfare policy will shake some feathers and hard

and the immigration policy well that will do the same

regards repatriation please expand on who you are referring too

You will know when it comes out will be posted on www.tapp.org.au also will inform here and possibly another press release

Oh another thing the Australian Product Policy will probably come out at the same time.

Stu

Title: Re: Animal Welfare
Post by Aussie Nationalist on Feb 27th, 2007 at 8:51pm
Repatiatriation- send people back to country of origin.
eg; those that have not learnt english after being here for more than a year or refuse to abide by Australian laws.

Title: Re: Animal Welfare
Post by Stu on Feb 27th, 2007 at 8:57pm
you will have to wait for the immigration policy

Title: Re: Animal Welfare
Post by Stu on Mar 2nd, 2007 at 7:41pm
To all PayPal is now on The Australian Peoples Party Website for those wishing.
See News

Also the animal welfare policy is coming along and well as the immigration policy.

www.tapp.org.au

Title: Tapp vs Labor & Liberal
Post by Stu on Mar 3rd, 2007 at 12:02pm
This would be an interesting concept.

Immigration Policy oh my

This is going to be good.

Title: Re: Tapp vs Labor & Liberal
Post by enviro on Mar 3rd, 2007 at 12:13pm
forgive my ignorance Stu but, what are you talking about? :)

Title: Re: Tapp vs Labor & Liberal
Post by Stu on Mar 3rd, 2007 at 12:18pm
Well Tapp is The Australian Peoples Party

And the immigration policy that will be coming out during the week with several others

www.tapp.org.au

Title: Re: Tapp vs Labor & Liberal
Post by enviro on Mar 4th, 2007 at 2:34pm
I'm looking forward to see your immigration policy. Have you seeked input from multicultural leaders in this country? or is it a white Australia policy? Does it promote population growth to Australia and can we afford the infrastructure for any rapid growth? Does it also address the areas of housing, welfare and skills?

I can't wait to see it.
:)

Title: KEVIN RUDD THE HYPOCRITES HYPOCRITE
Post by Stuart Ulrich(Guest) on Aug 7th, 2007 at 2:39pm
Now people are going to have quite a few words to say about this, but first I will get this off my chest after watching how Kevin Rudd complains about the Federal Government.

Do not get me wrong as I do not approve of the Liberal Party as well, but with the party spin that occurs nowadays the truth is left behind.

First of all these parties, Governor General, Australian Electoral Commission and all of our federal MP’S are constitutionally corrupt and inept.
They see our constitution, that’s right the peoples constitution as nothing more than a piece of scrap that they can do with as they wish.
This constitution was created and voted on by the people and our governments have no care for them except their own political party constitution, because of this it is us the people that suffer.

Now let’s get down to Kevin Rudd and the Labor party hypocrisy.

I had seen on the TV that Kevin Rudd and the Labor Party always seem to have blame for the federal government, but when it comes to the truth of the matter the blame and fault is all theirs.
Due to the deceit that these parties have shown, the people do not understand the constitution and thus how government is supposed to work. If the people were to know that by going to the parliament home page and doing a search on constitutional debates within the constitution collection then more would be well aware as to what is required for federal and by states.

In the end this boils down to incompetence, not bad luck or poor judgment but incompetence.

Following I have included an extract from Kevin Rudd’s speech dated 11/11/1998

“But when my father was accidentally killed and my mother, like thousands of others, was left to rely on the bleak charity of the time to raise a family, it made a young person think. It made me think that a decent social security system designed to protect the weak was no bad thing. It made me think that the provision of decent public housing to the poor was the right thing to do. When I saw people unnecessarily die in the appallingly underfunded Queensland hospital system of the 1960s and 1970s it made me think that the provision of a decent universal health system should be one of the first responsibilities of the state.
When the kids I went to school with—most of them the daughters and sons of good Country Party families—were unable even to begin to realise their potential because of the abysmal levels of funding to the Queensland school system during those halcyon days of the Bjelke-Petersen government, it made me think that there was something fundamentally crook. If equality of opportunity does not begin in the school system, it begins nowhere at all. “

So when the states are incompetent this is ok not to voice unless the state is being run by another party. One can also see that Kevin Rudd had not believed in the social security system until he was in that situation when it was needed.
Another point, public housing well where and how is the states combating this, they are not and is Kevin Rudd voicing his disapproval No.

So what we have here is somebody who is saying one thing but believes in the other, so in the end what do we the people get.
We get candidates from other areas that are brought in for what purpose, to represent these parties and these parties themselves. It is these parties who have already decided what they will do and it is us the people that will be dictated to by party policy and not by electoral representation.

We can also see the hypocrisy that is forced upon the people by these people and their parties in education. One would believe that The Australian Constitution would be important and the debates that created this document but no, we cannot have the people too educated as to know what our government ministers and their governments are supposed to act.

One would say that I am biased well no, even though I am running as an Independent in the seat of Charlton and I stand firmly behind my words. I would have to say the truth never gets out but sooner or latter the people will rise and truly understand that they are really treated like mushrooms.


Finally I would like to say this;
When voting, vote as if it is you standing there in parliament to represent the people.

The question to you is;
A      Will you do as you are told, act as you are told or be expelled by your party if you do not follow the party line, or

B Will you stand and represent your neighbours, your community, your electorate and voice your concerns without any party bulling or retribution and be a independent voice for those who need your representation.


Stuart Ulrich
Independent Candidate for Charlton

Title: Re: KEVIN RUDD THE HYPOCRITES HYPOCRITE
Post by freediver on Aug 7th, 2007 at 2:51pm
Hi Stu, long time no see. Have you forgotten your login? I can get it emailed to you again if you have. Also, I was thinking of splicing all of your old APP threads into one thread. Is that OK with you?

I couldn't figure out from your post what the constitutional issue was. Can you clarify for us please?

Title: Re: KEVIN RUDD THE HYPOCRITES HYPOCRITE
Post by Stuart Ulrich(Guest) on Aug 7th, 2007 at 3:55pm
Login and password dont remember
ok about that stuff.

Now remember your post voting above the line

well

When pollies get into government they are supposed to drop the party bit and be representative of the people.
Free to stand for and against.
This is within  constitutional debates.

Also alegience and/obedience to others
Hello they are obedient to their parties and also an alegience.
An Alegience is also created within shares and business, remember when it comes down to it kevin rudd has a half share in a multi dollar business like many and this is where thier veiws can change to suit an  outcome that is favourable.

Stuart

Title: Re: KEVIN RUDD THE HYPOCRITES HYPOCRITE
Post by freediver on Aug 7th, 2007 at 3:59pm
When pollies get into government they are supposed to drop the party bit and be representative of the people.

Is there something about that in the constitution?

Also alegience and/obedience to others

If people know about this allegiance before voting for them, how is it a problem?

Title: Re: KEVIN RUDD THE HYPOCRITES HYPOCRITE
Post by Stu(Guest) on Aug 7th, 2007 at 4:17pm
The problem is that the people do not know about the debates.
It was the debates that created the constitution, the why and how.

The Government does want to tell the people that the debates are there.
Cannot have the people to educated on how things are supposed to work.

The debates are the reasoning behind just like,

Why is taking something stealing.
when we look at the reasons behind what is theft, that gives the full picture not just part there off.

About this I would not have posted if not in the constitution.
The federal government over the years uses a patsy the AEC to do what they want and to disregard the constitution is one of those things.

If they want me they can charge me, but hell will freeze over before that ever happens due to the repocussions that they all would face.


Title: Re: KEVIN RUDD THE HYPOCRITES HYPOCRITE
Post by freediver on Aug 7th, 2007 at 4:26pm
How are they disregarding the constitution Stu?

Title: Re: KEVIN RUDD THE HYPOCRITES HYPOCRITE
Post by stu(Guest) on Aug 7th, 2007 at 5:00pm
you may not have noticed they are in parliament.

if they have an aleigence or obedience


Title: Re: KEVIN RUDD THE HYPOCRITES HYPOCRITE
Post by freediver on Aug 7th, 2007 at 5:03pm
Could you give a bit more explanation? Humour me and pretend I have no idea what you are talking about.

Title: Re: KEVIN RUDD THE HYPOCRITES HYPOCRITE
Post by sprintcyclist on Aug 7th, 2007 at 9:30pm
Hi Stu,
Well done on being an independant. Good luck, independants have a pretty good reputation.
I see your point re allegiance and obedience.

IMHO, I'ld prefer someone representing me who was successful. be it had a business or investments.
I want a winner in front of me, someone who can "do stuff".  Who knows how the world works.
It sure would bring up conflicts of interest.

They do have votes of conscience, don't they ? Perhaps, all votes should be votes of confidence ?


Title: Re: KEVIN RUDD THE HYPOCRITES HYPOCRITE
Post by Progs on Aug 13th, 2007 at 6:38pm
Stuart, all I can say is that if I lived in Charlton electorate, I would not vote for a whinger like you. I can tolerate politicians whinging sometimes, as long as they offer policy and vision. You complain that Rudd is a hypocrite, which I think is probably true, but he is a politicians and as a rule, I think, all politicians are dirty, lying hypocrites - it goes with the territory. That said, Rudd and the Labor party offer policies that I like and they have a vision that I like and that is why I would vote for them. Independents can be useful but I think there are already too many inds in Federal Parliament for them to be of any great use, and besides I think this election is far too important to be wasting my vote on an independent.

Title: Re: KEVIN RUDD THE HYPOCRITES HYPOCRITE
Post by oceansblue on Aug 13th, 2007 at 7:53pm
Very decisive words Progs!! ;)

Title: Web Site
Post by Stu on Feb 14th, 2007 at 3:32pm
Hi to all

The Australian peoples Party now has a web site

address is www.tapp.org.au

also FD you are quite welcome to add your site to the links page

Stu ;) ;) ;)

Title: Re: Web Site
Post by Australian Nationalist(Guest) on Feb 14th, 2007 at 8:51pm
What is your party about. is it left,centre or right wing.

Title: Re: Web Site
Post by Stu on Feb 14th, 2007 at 10:01pm
Well have a look you will even find costitution press release and some policies
you will find my leaning on this site somewhere. I also believe that i did email you i think from cracker.

FD fixed that prob have another go also created section forum & blogs with sub cats of general and political

sorry about the stuff up

stu
 :) :) :)

Title: Re: Web Site
Post by freediver on Feb 15th, 2007 at 8:45am
Good work Stu. Are you doing the web stuff yourself? How are you finding the software?

Title: Re: Web Site
Post by freediver on Feb 15th, 2007 at 8:56am
I resubmitted and got this: Site URL has already been submitted for validation, please be patient.

Title: Re: Web Site
Post by Stu on Feb 15th, 2007 at 9:42am
FD its there
under forum political

Stu

worked that out to

Title: Re: Web Site
Post by freediver on Feb 15th, 2007 at 9:46am
Oh sorry. My mistake.

Title: Re: Web Site
Post by Stu on Feb 15th, 2007 at 10:26am
FD no probs
saw you were getting a bashing on cracker
who cares what they think about you site

stu

8-) 8-)

Title: Re: AUSTRALIAN PEOPLES PARTY
Post by freediver on Aug 19th, 2007 at 10:56am
bump

Title: Re: AUSTRALIAN PEOPLES PARTY
Post by Aussie Nationalist on Aug 19th, 2007 at 6:57pm

freediver wrote on Aug 19th, 2007 at 10:56am:
bump

What the hell is ''bump''?

Title: Re: AUSTRALIAN PEOPLES PARTY
Post by pender on Aug 19th, 2007 at 9:46pm
people say bumb when they want to keep the thread up the top of the list

Title: Re: AUSTRALIAN PEOPLES PARTY
Post by freediver on Aug 20th, 2007 at 10:13am
With all the splicing of topics this thread somehow managed to end up on the last page of the board, even though there was recent discussion re "KEVIN RUDD THE HYPOCRITES HYPOCRITE", so I bumped it back to the top.

Title: Re: AUSTRALIAN PEOPLES PARTY
Post by Richard Hole on Sep 15th, 2007 at 10:40am
Hi

I am interested in the Australian People’s Party and where I can see a summary of the policies.

Also, I am wondering what you think about having an alliance of minor parties and candidates where the alliance would have core policies that the candidates would agree on. However, each candidate could have the freedom to have their own policies in addition to the core policies of the alliance.

I am about to send a letter about this plan to the forum after I sent this message. Please let me know what you think of the letter that we can share along with some ideas for policies that should gain wide support at advantagein.com/politics/indexaus.html

Your help will be appreciated
Regards Richard.


Title: Re: AUSTRALIAN PEOPLES PARTY
Post by freediver on Sep 15th, 2007 at 5:25pm
http://www.ozpolitic.com/app/app.html

They also have a separate website. The link should be in this thread somewhere.

Australian Politics Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.5.2!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2024. All Rights Reserved.