75 radical ideas to transform Australia. Be like Gough.... but in reverse.

[greennick]

This would be a fair indicator that Australia's health system is the best in the world

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/he...al-rate-in-world/story-fneuzlbd-1226593471571

Would that also be because our main cancers is melanoma, which is inherently one of the easier cancers to detect and successfully treat?

I just don't buy that we have better treatment than, say, Norway. It is a shame the stats weren't split out to a per cancer type.

 

[Wonaeamirri33]

You really do have absolutely NO idea what you are talking about. None... Here are some facts for you

You're a funny guy Dan. Always have been

But I'm afraid pretending the boards of the ABC and SBS haven't been stacked to achieve political outcomes within news reportage and opinion presented within those stations doesn't actually whitewash away the fact these events have taken place.

The fact an extremist organisation like the IPA (and the fact they're the Coalition's primary policy formulation body at this stage says ever so much about the Coalition) receive such disproportionate, and soft, exposure on the ABC, is just one of numerous examples highlighting how the ABC news department has been perverted since the board stack in 2003.

Pretending Murdoch doesn't run his newspapers as a partisan political vehicle also doesn't alter the fact that he clearly does. Even to the point where Murdoch papers in this country have deliberately lied about at least one party's how-to-vote cards before now, amongst other things.

And pretending Rinehart hasn't sought and achieved a clear political impact on news coverage within Channel 10 and Fairfax (and held private meetings where the overarching strategy of hers was planned out), doesn't somehow mean that she hasn't undertaken such activities, and hasn't had such a goal in mind while doing so.

 

[medusala]

No Singapore does not spend less on it's health services as a % of GDP than Pakistan!!!

I did not say that. Total govt spending as % of gdp is less. However, Singapore government spending on healthcare is very low compared to Western countries and in most cases far superior. Just as the US govt spends a similar (and growing rapidly) % of gdp on healthcare as other western countries with worse results.

The same goes for education.

There is very little correlation between spending and outcomes.

http://news.xin.msn.com/en/singapore/article.aspx?cp-documentid=5948092

He said Singapore is currently spending about 1.6 per cent of the GDP on healthcare.

By 2016, it would go up to two per cent of GDP and by 2030 when the rapidly ageing population will be the biggest driver of rising expenditure going forward, healthcare spending may reach around 3.5 per cent of GDP, taking into account demographic changes and higher medical inflation

 

[medusala]

And pretending Rinehart hasn't sought and achieved a clear political impact on news coverage within Channel 10 and Fairfax (and held private meetings where the overarching strategy of hers was planned out), doesn't somehow mean that she hasn't undertaken such activities, and hasn't had such a goal in mind while doing so.

The union movement has blatantly bought the ALP and receives favours for cash.

Where is your outrage at this corruption and fleecing of Australian taxpayers?

 

[pazza]

The union movement has blatantly bought the ALP and receives favours for cash.

Where is your outrage at this corruption and fleecing of Australian taxpayers?

Good grief.

The ALP is borne of the union Movement. Don't need to buy something out you were born from.

 

[Caesar]

Who in the hell takes the IPA or anything they say seriously?????

Think tanks like the IPA, CIS, McKell Institute, Australia Institute, etc. are vital to a dynamic political landscape in this country. It is important that they develop and promote radical concepts and outside-the-box thinking on both the left and right sides of the political spectrum.

Most of the stuff think tanks come up with will never make it into policy, but they start a debate and challenge people to get thinking about alternative solutions. When political parties are so focused on the small target and governing by opinion polls, you need groups out there that are not afraid to take on and promote controversial solutions to social problems. We need people challenging our leaders on the basis of ideas.

The one thing I do think needs to happen is for think tanks to be more transparent. The IPA has close links to influential figures like Gina Rinehardt. The McKell Insititute is run by Paul Howes. Senior politicians frequently appear as keynote speakers at events, personnel at the think tanks have close associations with political parties. Neither discloses their major donors.

When the ideas that these think tanks come up with are heavily promoted and discussed in the media, I think it is important to know who is funding them.

 

[Wonaeamirri33]

The ALP is borne of the union Movement.

Very true mate. But with the exception of four right-wing unions (the AWU, NUW, SDA and TWU), it's fair to say the ALP is often rather remote from the labour movement these days. Hence their failure to even remove all elements of WorkChoices as they promised to, let alone do anything to ameliorate/overturn Howard's 'first wave' of IR legislation.

 

[Caesar]

Very true mate. But with the exception of four right-wing unions (the AWU, NUW, SDA and TWU), it's fair to say the ALP is often rather remote from the labour movement these days.

Sure, just the AWU, NUW, SDA and TWU. Oh, and the AMWU, LHMU, ASU and FSU, all of whom have multiple representatives on the ALP National Executive. Heck, even the CFMEU, the biggest profile union in terms of disagreement with the ALP, has a representative.

Just because the big four right-wing unions currently control the ALP doesn't mean that the ALP has distanced itself from the union movement. If anything, it's the reverse.

 

[Wonaeamirri33]

Just because the big four right-wing unions currently control the ALP doesn't mean that the ALP has distanced itself from the union movement.

Certainly I'm aware of the continued affiliations with the various other unions and their representation as a result.

While a number of others have representation on the executive, as you say yourself, it's obvious which have real power within the ALP and which don't.

And outside of those four unions, it's arguable that the union movement as a whole doesn't have much say - as reflected by the policy positions of the ALP since the 2007 election, I think. And before that time... they abandoned their opposition to the 'first wave' much earlier, aside from their continual rightward shift otherwise.

 

[Caesar]

I don't know how you can say "outside those four unions, the union movement doesn't have much say". All that means is that the union movement's say is dominated by a smaller number of unions.

Whilst the ALP National Executive doesn't set policy, as the highest elected body of the Party its composition is a fairly good representation of where the power in the party lies. And virtually every member has a union background and almost every non-parliamentary member is a union rep.

The unions still run the party.

 

[Admiral Byng]

It says a lot about the naïve way left-wing people think, that you believe the fact that Australian's are now living longer is due to Medicare.

No, it's not due to that at all.

As time has gone on, humans have invented more things, discovered more things, and built on the top of achievements of other humans. As a consequence, the standard of living has gone up, all over the world over the last few hundred years/ few thousands years

Governments don't invent things. Governments don't discover new technology. People do.

Dan - you got owned on this point a long way back in the original thread.

Demand for health care is not discretionary. People don't plan ahead and schedule when they'll develop cancer for example and start a savings plan accordingly. Health problems happen when they happen, and it is invariably cheaper and easier to treat them as early as possible, for all sorts of conditions. It is better in the long therm for society to have a universal system of health cover so that everyone can get access to treatment if they can't afford the bill upfront. The benefit of a lifetime of quality of life, including employment and therefore taxation outweighs the upfront costs of social medicine.

What's the point of having all these inventions and breakthroughs if only a small percentage of the population can afford them, and the rest are left to die or eek out an existence in pain and suffering because they can't afford it?

For example, I worked with a bloke who had a son born with a deformed hand. Poor kid had to endure about 20 operations, but he now has a functioning hand. All paid for by the taxpayer of course. His Dad was a low income earner on a rolling short term contract. No way he could afford the cost of surgery himself, or get a loan to pay for it because he was a contractor. But, the kid now has a working hand and has all the job prospects open to him like any other kid. Without Medicare this kid would grow up a cripple with limited job prospects, not to mention social prospects.

 

[Wonaeamirri33]

Who in the hell takes the IPA or anything they say seriously?????

Tony Abbott

Yes, Abbott. And the Coalition as a whole. As well as the Murdoch press and the ABC, of course.

 

[Wonaeamirri33]

However in the same survey wasn't it also said most of the editors and bosses were much more likely to vote right wing?

Exactly. Although Dan coincidentally neglected to mention this point, of course.

And anyone in any doubt about the partisan nature of our mainstream media need only look, for instance, at how issues such as global warming are covered by our major newspapers, the ABC, and other major TV outlets and radio stations - and the dominant trend of commentary about both global warming and alternative energy within said outlets. The ever-so-frequent exposure so freely given to unqualified conspiracy theorists and lobbyists to spruik their wares on those issues, but scarcely granted to real scientists by comparison.

They can see it in the way media outlets have reported on the NBN (http://www.independentaustralia.net...c-and-what-lies-beneath-the-australians-lies/) carbon pricing (http://theconversation.com/biased-newspaper-reporting-on-the-carbon-pricing-mechanism-11373) or any one of a wide range of other issues. They can see it in the way stories about Federal politics are so often front-ended with unscrutinised soundbites/comments from Abbott or another Coalition MP, a pattern most consistent on the ABC and within the Murdoch press. And the near-total lack of scrutiny applied to the Coalition in general over recent years.

They can see it in the dramatically greater prominence so often given to right-wing or far-right opinion, and voices from far-right organisations, in comparison with anyone else. One example being that I referred to before, with the tremendous levels of exposure slavishly given to the IPA by the ABC, whether on TV, on radio or on their website. And Murdoch stenographers (can't really call them journalists) receive similarly generous exposure - an obvious sign of the way News Ltd and ABC News appear to pull in the same direction so often these days.

They can see it in the extreme partisan political vitriol which has resonated throughout our mainstream media for years now, the countless examples of such extremism over this period, most obviously within newspaper opinion columns and on the radio.

They can see it in the way "scandals" pertaining to parties other than the Coalition are confected and shrieked about in hysterical fashion, while clear cases of impropriety and wrongdoing involving Coalition politicians are invariably softpedalled or straight-out ignored.

The most obvious case being Ashbygate.

 

[Dan26]

Exactly. Although Dan coincidentally neglected to mention this point, of course.

You really don't get it do you? What difference does it make who the owners vote for? Most people that WRITE for News Limited are left-wingers. And that's from an official survey. Is it a crime to be a right-winger and own a newspaper, anyway? What if billionaire left-wingers Bill gates and Warren Buffet owned a newspaper? That wouldn't be a problem. They are entitled to start a business. You see, in the free-market, people can choose what they want to read. If people don't like the Herald Sun, they won't read it and it will go out of business.

And anyone in any doubt about the partisan nature of our mainstream media need only look, for instance, at how issues such as global warming are covered by our major newspapers, the ABC, and other major TV outlets and radio stations - and the dominant trend of commentary about both global warming and alternative energy within said outlets. The ever-so-frequent exposure so freely given to unqualified conspiracy theorists and lobbyists to spruik their wares on those issues, but scarcely granted to real scientists by comparison

The mainstream media coverage of the climate change debate over the last decade has been nothing short of contemptible. They are as guilty as anyone for jumping on the scare campaign and have failed
to report the basic facts. Thank God for the Internet, and some diligent and heroic people in the media who havn't succumbed to the "group-think" of the left.

The media havn't reported that sceptics (who they call deniers, in a clear reference to holocaust denial) are happy to accept that C02 is a greenhouse gas and causes warming, that humans produce CO2, that CO2 levels are rising, and that the earth has warmed in the last century. According to Hansen 1984, Bony 2006, and the IPCC AR4 report, the direct effect of doubling the level of CO2 amounts to 1.2 degrees(i.e. before feedbacks). This is accepted by everyone. It's also irrelevant to the debate. All that matters is A.) Are humans the MAIN driver of C02 and B.) Is it dangerous? And there is no empirical evidence to support either of these things.

All the mainstream media climate alarmists need is the paper with the evidence showing that the 1.2 degrees direct warming is amplified to 3 or 4 degrees as projected by the models. Key leaders in the "denial" movement have been asking for this data for years. The problem is none of the alarmist scientists can provide any hard evidence.

Unfortunately the IPCC assessment reports do not contain any direct observations of the amplification, either by water vapor (the key positive feedback) or the totality of feedbacks. The IPCC only quotes results from climate simulations. The media then report this from the IPCC. The media are sheep on this topic.

Since science is based on observations and measurements of the real world, it follows that a denier of science (rather than a denier of propaganda) must be denying real world data. I’d be most grateful if you could explain why the mainstream media has failed to report the basic facts.

 

[RUNVS]

You really don't get it do you? What difference does it make who the owners vote for? Most people that WRITE for News Limited are left-wingers. And that's from an official survey. Is it a crime to be a right-winger and own a newspaper, anyway? What if billionaire left-wingers Bill gates and Warren Buffet owned a newspaper? That wouldn't be a problem. They are entitled to start a business. You see, in the free-market, people can choose what they want to read. If people don't like the Herald Sun, they won't read it and it will go out of business.

You do know that the editors make the decisions about what is printed, the importance a story is given and even the headline don't you?

 

[Wonaeamirri33]

You do know that the editors make the decisions about what is printed, the importance a story is given and even the headline don't you?

Apparently that doesn't matter mate. It also doesn't matter how blatantly dishonest and slanted towards the Coalition mainstream media political coverage is.

Because you see, Dan has this survey which magically alters reality where such things are concerned.

And besides, in a democracy, as Dan says, it's perfectly fine when newspapers, radio and TV stations abandon their responsibility to report the news accurately, and start acting as a propaganda machine for one political party.

That only enhances democracy in this country, doesn't it.

And of course, it's a well-known fact that thousands of prominent scientists from all over the world are completely unconcerned with evidence on the issue of anthropogenic global warming and are actually secretly meeting to carry out a dastardly plan to take civilisation back to the Medieval period.

Everyone knows that. So much so that we don't even need to see any supporting evidence for such claims either.

We only need to see the words "evidence" and "facts" repeated a few times. That'll satisfy us.

And anyone who says otherwise "doesn't get it", is part of "the left" and engaging in "group-think".

Dan told me so.

 

[Dan26]

You do know that the editors make the decisions about what is printed, the importance a story is given and even the headline don't you?

So what? That is irrelevant. People CHOOSE to buy a newspaper, and can elect not to buy it if they want.

News Limited outsells Fairfax in Australia, but that is because Fairfax is putting out a product that people don't want to read. All credit goes to news Limited, and well done to them for being successful. Despite this, the reality is that most of the content printed form the journalists is written by people who are left-wing. That's just the way it is. There is no point denying it, that's the reality.

And those that do want to read something with a left-wing slant, are getting it for free with "our" ABC. Why would they pay for it with Fairfax?

Privatising the ABC would solve the problem for Fairfax.

Looking at today's Herald-Sun I can find nothing with any right-wing bias. The only political opinion piece in the paper today is by Laurie Oakes who is a Labor voter. Have a look yourself.

There is an article about the daughters of both Rudd and Abbott, but there is no bias there. And even if there was bias (which there isn't), you are perfectly entitled not to read it and go and buy The Age. Or read Crickey online. Or watch commercial TV, or anything else that has a left-wing slant? Hell, have you ever watched 60 Minutes?

 

[Dan26]

Apparently that doesn't matter mate. It also doesn't matter how blatantly dishonest and slanted towards the Coalition mainstream media political coverage is.

Journalism, as a profession is practiced by people who lean to the left. That's just the way it is.

Because you see, Dan has this survey which magically alters reality where such things are concerned.

What, like a survey of journalists of both Fairfax and News Limited which shows that BOTH organisations hire more journalists who lean to the left than the right? You mean THAT reality?

And besides, in a democracy, as Dan says, it's perfectly fine when newspapers, radio and TV stations abandon their responsibility to report the news accurately, and start acting as a propaganda machine for one political party.

"cough" ABC "cough"

The ABC is taxpayer funded, and yet it subscribes to left-wing group-think, and clear bias, All 8 current affairs presenters lean to the left. The ABC is obligated to be unbiased. It HAS to be unbiased. Why? It is taxpayer funded.

If any other news network engaged in blatant propaganda, they would go out of business, because when people source their news, they want the facts. A newspaper "could" decide to engage in propaganda, and under a risky strategy that it "might" increase their business, but the reality is that it would reduce their sales, and people would source their news from more reliable sources.

A private business can publish whatever they want, and they should be able to publish whatever they want. You, as a consumer have the choice of whether to read it or not.

And besides, at News Limited, 46.5 per cent of journalists said they would vote for Labor, 26.7 per cent for the Coalition, and 19.8 per cent for the Greens.

The main difference between journalists at the ABC and in the commercial media is that the latter are mindful of the imperative to make a dollar. Far from corrupting journalism as you suggest, market forces keep journalists on the straight and narrow and less dismissive of the national mood.

Why would a journalist at News limited risk their career by not doing their job and reporting things incorrectly or with a deliberate bias? market forces keep journalists honest, it's as simple as that. There is a natural slant to the left generally, but it's not propaganda. You only really get propaganda in China or North Korea, where the entire media is state run.

And of course, it's a well-known fact that thousands of prominent scientists from all over the world are completely unconcerned with evidence on the issue of anthropogenic global warming and are actually secretly meeting to carry out a dastardly plan to take civilisation back to the Medieval period.

The number of scientists that agree with the alarmist propaganda is actually quite low. The "97%" figure is from a survey at the University of Illinois to 10,000 scientists and only 77 responded. Of those 77, 75 of them answered yes to tow questions that even I would answer yes to.

That is where the "97% of climate scientists agree" figure comes from. It's only 75 people.

The most important chapter of the IPCC's latest report was signed off by only 50 scientists and after climate-gate this was reduced to 25.

I can name you 31,000 scientists (including 9,000 PHD's) that disagree with the apocalyptic alarmism. http://www.petitionproject.org

The scientists who buy into the alarmism, are not necessarily dishonest, but they are being paid to find a link between humans and C02 emissions. No one is being paid to find the opposite. Nearly all the "alarmist" scientists are government funded. Funny that.

Not one of them can find any empirical evidence to support their view. That is why people who subscribe to group think like you are losing the debate. Climate alarmism has taken a true fact (that C02 causes warming) and exaggerated it. They have done this as an excuse to have more control, and tax people more. It's as simple as that. Why do you think more left-wing people "conveniently" agree with it? Just a coincidence I'm sure.

If you bothered to look at the evidence I could convince you in 15 minutes, but you are probably so hard-wired to believe this green religion, that you wouldn't listen.

The facts are, that ALL of the models have overestimated the warming. And we havn't had any statistically significant warming for 17 years.

​

Courtesy of John Christy, a comparison between 73 CMIP5 models (archived at the KNMI Climate Explorer website) and observations for the tropical bulk tropospheric temperature (aka “MT") since 1979… ​

 

[Power Raid]

I can't get over how many people want more government.

Who would want to work for Kevin or Tony?

 

[Docker Clint]

That's some sublime trolling Dan26. Bravo.

 

[noddy]

That's some sublime trolling Dan26. Bravo.

He's very good at it though.

 

[noddy]

I can't get over how many people want more government.

Who would want to work for Kevin or Tony?

Tony for me

When Howard took over in 96 if i'm not mistaken by 07 hadn't the size of government rises quite a bit as to what it was in 96.

 

[Power Raid]

Tony for me

When Howard took over in 96 if i'm not mistaken by 07 hadn't the size of government rises quite a bit as to what it was in 96.

Would you really want to work for Tony?

 

[noddy]

Would you really want to work for Tony?

At a price that would suit my needs.

Sorry but i just can't stand Rudd & never could.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

That's some sublime trolling Dan26. Bravo.

He still won't reply to the thread asking him if he paid SEO companies to promote his own threads, though!

Anyway, is this thread meant to be about 'radical ideas'? This one isn't as important to Sydney as Rudd's anti-corruption reforms and isn't even radical, but it's still a positive one until the property developers get all corrupt on it!:
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/the-heart...eekilometre-rail-corridor-20130712-2pudd.html