Is modern politics inherently flawed? (1 Viewer)

[nerdasdasd]

...because they have a one party system you dolt

Not even this is true. You vote for individuals who declare their party affiliations.

What if I wanted to run an ad that went over the reasons of why Hitler did nothing wrong and why the Nazis should have won WW2? Would you support any network's decision to not air that, even despite that this is an opinion just like GetUp! are trying to get their opinion across?

I know, but look at how much china had achieved over the years? They have extensive transport network and infrastructure established. In australia , the trains haven't improved much at all! Not to mention the motorways .....

Having a one party government would mean little to no resistance of policies which can and will benefit the country.

 

[Tasteless]

fuck the country if its gains are at the expense and exploitation of the individual

 

[Lolsmith]

I know, but look at how much china had achieved over the years? They have extensive transport network and infrastructure established. In australia , the trains haven't improved much at all! Not to mention the motorways .....

Having a one party government would mean little to no resistance of policies which can and will benefit the country.

Sure if that's the way you view progress in a country. You should also take note that it's much much easier to improve from a dirt road to something resembling an industrious infrastructure than it is from good infrastructure to world class infrastructure. Especially if workers are paid less, will do what the state tells them (otherwise it's off to the gulag with you, or plain and simple your family starves) and have several orders of magnitude more people to carry it out.

There are incredibly awful downsides to a one party system. Namely, like Tasteless points out the almost complete absence of individual rights. China's government are not beholden to its people, only to the point where they don't cause another revolution due to bad governance. It's the opposite in democracy. People (speaking generally here) desire rights like the ability voice a dissenting opinion from the government. Since their position is predicated on the idea that they represent the values and desires of the electorate they are elected from, it is within their own interests to protect those rights. China's system doesn't have the same incentives.

I probably don't need to point out some of the horrific things that happen in China, one of the reasons these things occur is the one party system. Even with all this said, it could be very likely that the Chinese peoples would vote for a the CCP to represent them. But without any alternative to their position or risk to their positions, why care about what people want?

 

[OzKo]

I know, but look at how much china had achieved over the years? They have extensive transport network and infrastructure established. In australia , the trains haven't improved much at all! Not to mention the motorways .....

Having a one party government would mean little to no resistance of policies which can and will benefit the country.

When your individual rights are impinged upon so often, you'll realise that it is at a massive cost.

 

[obliviousninja]

Australian politics in a nutshell.

 

[Trebla]

Re: The p00n thread

That excuse only applies to economic policy, if the government forecasts a surplus and end up with a deficit due to some MASS change in economic condition then that is understandable.
These people are politicians, they mostly have a background in law and economics and they should know what assumptions to make, just because they don't deliberately 'lie' doesn't mean they aren't being dishonest or being silly because they know they are making promises that they cannot keep.

Its not like every time a politician fails to deliver on a promise, its because of changing economic conditions

I don't think all politicians have backgrounds in economics (many have backgrounds in arts and law). Even if they did then the assumptions made will not always be realised.

Also, it's not just economic policies that are dependent on uncertain variables. The success of social policies are also effectively guesswork as well. There is uncertainty in how industry groups, the public, other governments and minority groups will react especially if the policy favours one group of people at the expense of another group. There's also the success of implementing the policy itself in an operational sense which is also an uncertainty.

Also, the majority of government policies are dependent on the state of the economy anyway whether it be directly or indirectly because it has a massive impact on tax revenue. If the economy is slowing and tax revenue falls (eg due to higher unemployment) they may no longer be able to afford policies (whether they be economic or otherwise) that they initially promised and may be forced to cut funding on existing policies which previously had a promise of some sort attached to it.

My point is that many politicians are 'forced' to make these promises because that's what people want to hear. How else would you communicate the policy to the public? No one wants to hear a politician truthfully communicate uncertainty about their policies.

It is virtually impossible to make a series of large scale promises and 100% deliver them successfully. There will always be policy failures often due to factors beyond government control.

 

[OMGITzJustin]

sheesh, you guys see joe hockey sweating out there when he was announcing his costings, my goodness