..Irony.....

[Andy #24]

Not a pollie mate I hate them, almost clobbered a few that got in my way. The Union does run the unibar, I think it was set up when John Bannon was the union pres. The Union runs unibooks and mayo too. They operate as stand alone businesses and student fees don't go into them but they are still run by the union.

Would it be different if the University charged a student services fee and provided the services themselves? I think the term union and the fact that people were compelled to join an organisation seperate to uni was what people objected too.

Some of them are so annoying its painful. As for clobbering one of them, i doubt you would have been the first.

Would it be different, I think so, if that got rid of those student "professional students" pollies then yeah it would probably work.

Yeah, but the only problem with not paying them is no-one decent will go for the job. There's too much work to do not to get paid and if you do stop paying, then only the rich kids who are in it so it looks good will run for spots.
Same as real politics.

[stan]

Not a pollie mate I hate them, almost clobbered a few that got in my way. The Union does run the unibar, I think it was set up when John Bannon was the union pres. The Union runs unibooks and mayo too. They operate as stand alone businesses and student fees don't go into them but they are still run by the union.

Would it be different if the University charged a student services fee and provided the services themselves? I think the term union and the fact that people were compelled to join an organisation seperate to uni was what people objected too.

Some of them are so annoying its painful. As for clobbering one of them, i doubt you would have been the first.

Would it be different, I think so, if that got rid of those student "professional students" pollies then yeah it would probably work.

Yeah, but the only problem with not paying them is no-one decent will go for the job. There's too much work to do not to get paid and if you do stop paying, then only the rich kids who are in it so it looks good will run for spots.
Same as real politics.

lol, good point there.

[Psyber]

Not a pollie mate I hate them, almost clobbered a few that got in my way. The Union does run the unibar, I think it was set up when John Bannon was the union pres. The Union runs unibooks and mayo too. They operate as stand alone businesses and student fees don't go into them but they are still run by the union.

Would it be different if the University charged a student services fee and provided the services themselves? I think the term union and the fact that people were compelled to join an organisation seperate to uni was what people objected too.

Some of them are so annoying its painful. As for clobbering one of them, i doubt you would have been the first.

Would it be different, I think so, if that got rid of those student "professional students" pollies then yeah it would probably work.

Yeah, but the only problem with not paying them is no-one decent will go for the job. There's too much work to do not to get paid and if you do stop paying, then only the rich kids who are in it so it looks good will run for spots.
Same as real politics.

Not necessarily, our politicians in Australia prior to 1901 were unpaid and did it as public service. Perhaps if they were unpaid our Parliament would fill up with people who do good works via organistions like Rotary rather then people in it for more money than they can make in any job they are actually trained for.

[ I realise some of them like the lawyers could earn more outside Parliament.]

I don't think the rich kids would bother there are other more enjoyable things they could do with their time. Perhaps what we could do as a compromise is pay all MPs, but 10% less than they had earned in their previous job - that would sort out those on the make and enable the altruistic to be able to afford to go for it.

[am Bays]

Yeah, but the only problem with not paying them is no-one decent will go for the job. There's too much work to do not to get paid and if you do stop paying, then only the rich kids who are in it so it looks good will run for spots.
Same as real politics.

Christ when I think of the paid goons that ran the Flinders University Union and Student Association in the 1990s making those positions un-paid would not have lowered the standard any further.....impossible.

The only way you could have had animate beings of lower intellegence, would have been to elect candidates from a different species and even then it would barely have been a statiscally significant difference.

Hmm I appreciated a portion of my student service fee being spent subsidising the travel of left-wing revolutionaries from the Phillipines to teach them about "student politics" in 1990....

[mick]

Yeah, but the only problem with not paying them is no-one decent will go for the job. There's too much work to do not to get paid and if you do stop paying, then only the rich kids who are in it so it looks good will run for spots.
Same as real politics.

Christ when I think of the paid goons that ran the Flinders University Union and Student Association in the 1990s making those positions un-paid would not have lowered the standard any further.....impossible.

The only way you could have had animate beings of lower intellegence, would have been to elect candidates from a different species and even then it would barely have been a statiscally significant difference.

Hmm I appreciated a portion of my student service fee being spent subsidising the travel of left-wing revolutionaries from the Phillipines to teach them about "student politics" in 1990....

I'm wondering whether these are the same "goons" that ran the Union at Flinders in the 1970s Sure sounds like it. The Union was so left in those days that The Communist Party of Australia was considered right wing When I think the eight years of Union fees I paid went to subsidizing the Socialist Youth Alliance it makes me sick. Will Labor reintroduce the compulsory fee?

[Andy #24]

Not a pollie mate I hate them, almost clobbered a few that got in my way. The Union does run the unibar, I think it was set up when John Bannon was the union pres. The Union runs unibooks and mayo too. They operate as stand alone businesses and student fees don't go into them but they are still run by the union.

Would it be different if the University charged a student services fee and provided the services themselves? I think the term union and the fact that people were compelled to join an organisation seperate to uni was what people objected too.

Some of them are so annoying its painful. As for clobbering one of them, i doubt you would have been the first.

Would it be different, I think so, if that got rid of those student "professional students" pollies then yeah it would probably work.

Yeah, but the only problem with not paying them is no-one decent will go for the job. There's too much work to do not to get paid and if you do stop paying, then only the rich kids who are in it so it looks good will run for spots.
Same as real politics.

Not necessarily, our politicians in Australia prior to 1901 were unpaid and did it as public service. Perhaps if they were unpaid our Parliament would fill up with people who do good works via organistions like Rotary rather then people in it for more money than they can make in any job they are actually trained for.

[ I realise some of them like the lawyers could earn more outside Parliament.]

I don't think the rich kids would bother there are other more enjoyable things they could do with their time. Perhaps what we could do as a compromise is pay all MPs, but 10% less than they had earned in their previous job - that would sort out those on the make and enable the altruistic to be able to afford to go for it.

If the position is unpaid then it limits them to people who can support themselves without an income i.e. rich people. I don't know much about 19th century politics in Australia but I'd hazard a guess that the class of politicians wasn't representive of the population.

[Psyber]

Some of them are so annoying its painful. As for clobbering one of them, i doubt you would have been the first.

Would it be different, I think so, if that got rid of those student "professional students" pollies then yeah it would probably work.

Yeah, but the only problem with not paying them is no-one decent will go for the job. There's too much work to do not to get paid and if you do stop paying, then only the rich kids who are in it so it looks good will run for spots.
Same as real politics.

Not necessarily, our politicians in Australia prior to 1901 were unpaid and did it as public service. Perhaps if they were unpaid our Parliament would fill up with people who do good works via organistions like Rotary rather then people in it for more money than they can make in any job they are actually trained for.

[ I realise some of them like the lawyers could earn more outside Parliament.]

I don't think the rich kids would bother there are other more enjoyable things they could do with their time. Perhaps what we could do as a compromise is pay all MPs, but 10% less than they had earned in their previous job - that would sort out those on the make and enable the altruistic to be able to afford to go for it.

If the position is unpaid then it limits them to people who can support themselves without an income i.e. rich people. I don't know much about 19th century politics in Australia but I'd hazard a guess that the class of politicians wasn't representive of the population.

I'm not sure that would be a bad thing if the system selected in favour of the altruistic Rotary type set, rather than those into it because it pays them more than they could earn elsewhere, or the crims into it for the graft.

How do you feel about the compromise I offered?

[Psyber]

Yeah, but the only problem with not paying them is no-one decent will go for the job. There's too much work to do not to get paid and if you do stop paying, then only the rich kids who are in it so it looks good will run for spots.
Same as real politics.

I'm not sure I agree there Andy. You are making a wild assumption that the rich who don't need the money could not possibly be "decent". History is full of rich people doing great charitable work. Look at Bill Gates.

I would contend that the nasties are usually those who are making themselves rich and resenting having to and not being born with it. There I admit to being one of those born of a relatively poor family who has made myself moderately rich, but ethically, and without robbing or cheating others.

At this stage I could afford to help run the country for free - whether I could be bothered is another issue...
I have worked for free on ethics committees in my own profession, and on educational programmes.

[Andy #24]

OK fair enough I shouldn't bag people just for being rich. However the fact that it limits who can be a politician should be enough to chuck the idea out. The whole idea of our system of democracy is for it to be representative. They even snuck that into the constitution.

As for the compromise, not sure if people getting paid less for doing the same job would agree with the idea. Almost a corrolary to why socialism doesn't work. People getting paid different amounts for the same work is like people getting paid the same for differing amounts of work. Human nature want let it happen.

[Psyber]

OK fair enough I shouldn't bag people just for being rich. However the fact that it limits who can be a politician should be enough to chuck the idea out. The whole idea of our system of democracy is for it to be representative. They even snuck that into the constitution.

As for the compromise, not sure if people getting paid less for doing the same job would agree with the idea. Almost a corrolary to why socialism doesn't work. People getting paid different amounts for the same work is like people getting paid the same for differing amounts of work. Human nature want let it happen.

Yes, I agree generally with your points, but I'd do it for the 10% less now - so long as my wife didn't threaten to leave me if I became a pollie as she did some years ago - even if I couldn't quite be bothered to do it for nothing at the moment. Then I'm disillusioned now - perhaps when I've been away overseas for a while and returned, I might be inclined to reconsider.

The question is what the priority is - making it "fair" to all comers, or attracting genuinely altruistic people who want to serve rather than make the maximum quid, and enabling them to do so while weeding out those in it for the cash - a high percentage I suspect too.

I can see there are lots of potential problems - like the altruistic may have views that are not truly representative of the general public.

[Just as an example my line on alcohol and gambling laws and the exploitation of those who can least afford it by the purveyors of both, is not seen by many of the exploited as protecting them but as limiting their choice. On the other hand I would be stronger on good medical care, good education, and police policy reform and fair and just law enforcement, than a lot of our present pollies on both sides.]

But we get pollies with their own axes to grind in both major parties even when they are highly paid relative to most of the community - I realise there are exceptions - people who could earn more elsewhere, although I wonder how many could if they had not already been high profile pollies first.

I was grasping for a way to attract the generous rather than the greedy to politics!

[Andy #24]

Are you saying that the pollies are greedy at the moment? Their pay isn't that high. With the new ministerial code of conduct requiring them to divest all shareholdings they'll be making even less dosh. I would also say there isn't that much axe grinding going on except for the minority parties. Pretty much everyone just has to tow the line that the party room decides, which is generally a decision on what wins votes. Just look at Peter Garrett.

I assume you are talking about Xenephon. I think he is a bit of a joke but in the LC he ran on that platform so good on him for getting in. The people voted for it. As far as limiting choice, we do that all the time, drinking ages, banning drugs (don't want to get into that argument again but gambling is addictive too and socially damaging).

Agree completely with medical care and education but law enforcement? Sometimes people jump the gun on this and misunderstand how the law works. We also seem to lack a bit of compassion at the moment and just want to lock people up. The majority of people before the courts have personal histories that would make us all cringe. What specifically do you think is wrong with law enforcement and police policy?

[Psyber]

Are you saying that the pollies are greedy at the moment? Their pay isn't that high. With the new ministerial code of conduct requiring them to divest all shareholdings they'll be making even less dosh. I would also say there isn't that much axe grinding going on except for the minority parties. Pretty much everyone just has to tow the line that the party room decides, which is generally a decision on what wins votes. Just look at Peter Garrett.

I do think a percentage of people who become MPs come sources where an MPs pay is a real gain, like one locally [Liberal] who is an ex-police officer. The share holdings can be divested but the money re-invested in arms length funds like those run by Colonial, AXA, etc. so there may not be a loss of income. WorkChoices was somebody's axe - perhaps several somebody's - but it wasn't universally supported within the Liberal Party. Back in the 80's Bob Hawke and Paul Keating had their axe - they stated Medicare was costing so much because we had too many doctors seeing patients unnecessarily to make a living, and decided to cut down funding for medical training and look where that got us. So if the axe belongs to a powerful person or group the party itself is no protection.

I assume you are talking about Xenephon. I think he is a bit of a joke but in the LC he ran on that platform so good on him for getting in. The people voted for it. As far as limiting choice, we do that all the time, drinking ages, banning drugs (don't want to get into that argument again but gambling is addictive too and socially damaging).

No, I actually don't mind Nick Xenophon. I knew him before he became an MP and I think his concern for the way certain clubs kept people topped up with free booze so they kept pumping their WorkCover lump sums into the pokies was something that genuinely concerned him as a Barrister. I had specific knowledge of cases and sent a couple to him.

Agree completely with medical care and education but law enforcement? Sometimes people jump the gun on this and misunderstand how the law works. We also seem to lack a bit of compassion at the moment and just want to lock people up. The majority of people before the courts have personal histories that would make us all cringe. What specifically do you think is wrong with law enforcement and police policy?

I think we probably won't agree on this one Andy, but I think our society has been over tolerant of delinquent behaviour and too willing to make excuses for people who are old enough to be responsible for their actions. I liked the old British McNaughton Rules in criminal law - if someone knows what they are doing is "wrong" and could harm others, is against the law, and that there are consequences for it, then they are legally responsible at law, even if they are hallucinating and the voices told them to do it.

One piece of US law I support is the Felony Murder concept, where if you kill someone unintentionally in the process of committing a felony it is murder not manslaughter.

I believe we need more stringent policy on public behaviour, assault, and burglary, to make society safer for people. Violence and abusiveness should not be tolerated, because tolerating it allows it to increase. "But I was drunk!" is not an excuse - it actually makes the offence worse.

On the other hand I believe Police need to be policed to prevent them breaking the law by assaulting suspects, "fitting up" people, or being corrupt, or thinking they are above the law themselves. I am not for simply locking people up, but there need to be unavoidable consequences for repeat offenders as well as funding for real rehabilitation efforts rather than token ones.

I could write a whole treatise on this - but I won't - at least not here!

[Andy #24]

Maybe the assumption that people who would run for altruistic versions would be better politicians is untrue. Corporations don't hire altuistic CEOs, they throw money at the good ones. People who are in it for the money would also be less likely to grind axes as the would be committed to governing in a way that pleased the people as otherwise they would be unemployed. Bit of a catch 22 there, people complain when pollies are too responsive to what wins votes at the expense of what is "right", but how else does democracy work? I take your point about some people getting more money for being an MP, but I genuinely believe that pretty much all of them would be in it for the right reasons regardless of what I think of their policies.

The law and order issue is a tough one. You want to be tougher on deliquents but fund better rehab. If by being tougher you mean locking them up then the rehab becomes a lot harder later on. There might be more of a detterrent by longer sentences but then we would end up with sentences disproportionate to the crime committed. I'd say social factors were the underlying causes of criminal behaviour rather than inadequacies in criminal punishment to denounce or deter these delinquents.

I wouldn't say this kind of behaviour is tolerated either. It may be inadequately dealt with but no one wants to fund programs for these people. It just isn't a popular thing to do.

Sounds like you may be more on the punish for the harm caused rather than punish for culpability side of the coin. I think that leads to punishing people who are unlucky rather than punishing people who deserve it. Is attempted murder any better than murder?

Police already are policed themselves. I don't know much about internal discipline but when a procedure isn't followed or there is an impropiety by police a court can always exclude evidence.

[Psyber]

...The law and order issue is a tough one. You want to be tougher on deliquents but fund better rehab. If by being tougher you mean locking them up then the rehab becomes a lot harder later on. There might be more of a detterrent by longer sentences but then we would end up with sentences disproportionate to the crime committed. I'd say social factors were the underlying causes of criminal behaviour rather than inadequacies in criminal punishment to denounce or deter these delinquents.

I wouldn't say this kind of behaviour is tolerated either. It may be inadequately dealt with but no one wants to fund programs for these people. It just isn't a popular thing to do.

Sounds like you may be more on the punish for the harm caused rather than punish for culpability side of the coin. I think that leads to punishing people who are unlucky rather than punishing people who deserve it. Is attempted murder any better than murder?

Police already are policed themselves. I don't know much about internal discipline but when a procedure isn't followed or there is an impropiety by police a court can always exclude evidence.

I am not convinced that social factors are the cause of offensive behaviour except perhaps in the case of those who genuinely steal to feed their families, rather than to fund their drugs or Plasma TV. I am inclined to think getting away with it in the past is. Sure a difficult upbringing can predispose one to be irritable, angry, and inclined to lash out easily, but if you behave like that you have to be responsible for the behaviour and make effort to control it, and not make excuses for it - you should seek help instead. That is where the funding comes in - the help has to be there to seek - and the state does not provide it.

But I think it goes back further - self-discipline became a dirty word right back in the 1970's and now 2 generations have grown up without it, reinforced in their orientation by the lack of it shown on TV and in games and movies . I suspect we need a programme starting in the early school years aimed at re-education about the idea of personal responsibility for ones actions, and that self-indulgence is not good in a social animal.

I would be inclined to think nearly all first offenders should face diversion to appropriate courses and training, but we should be harder on those who are given the chances but don't take it and repeatedly offend. This may involve them paying the costs of their offences - even at $10 a week if that's all they can part with - rather than being locked up. The important thing in training any creature is that the consequences follow closely in time the behaviour, and that they are noticeable - reward for doing the correct thing and a quick brief deterrent for the incorrect thing. Humans are not much different from other creatures when it comes to training - reasoning and discussing and "counselling" is a waste of time at that point.

Counselling or psychotherapy services have a role once the motivation to change is there - without that it is futile. So change has to be made attractive or not changing made unattractive...

You are right about the courts being able to deal with impropriety by the police, but only when it is detected. They can get away with a lot inside the system/club, which a few I know have admitted. They need to be taught to not want to act unethically too.

I am talking major sodial change here, and I think it won't happen, because the financial investment for government in correcting 2 generations of drift into self-indugence is high. Hans Eysenck was right when he wrote "Sex, Violence,and the Media" many years ago.

[Psyber]

All that is getting a bit long-winded.

What I am trying to say is that in small tribal groups people tended to be more group orientated and the group awareness set certain standards of behaviour toward one another. Bigger groupings cause factions to evolve and different factions have different values and resent those whose differ friom theirs. Some small factions or individuals go feral and become totally selfish. Then societies start to break down and become increasingly fractured.

I'm talking about ways to rebuild social cohesion and cooperativeness before we have gone too far - if it isn't already too late. I'm for individual freedom, but not total ferality. That is do your own thing, just don't damage others' comfort, safety, and peace, while doing it.

[am Bays]

All that is getting a bit long-winded.

What I am trying to say is that in small tribal groups people tended to be more group orientated and the group awareness set certain standards of behaviour toward one another. Bigger groupings cause factions to evolve and different factions have different values and resent those whose differ friom theirs. Some small factions or individuals go feral and become totally selfish. Then societies start to break down and become increasingly fractured.

I'm talking about ways to rebuild social cohesion and cooperativeness before we have gone too far - if it isn't already too late. I'm for individual freedom, but not total ferality. That is do your own thing, just don't damage others' comfort, safety, and peace, while doing it.

Lets create a TV show based on group dynamics. We'll get a whole bunch of strangers from diverse backgrounds and put them together in one big group then split them up into smaller groups.

But, we'll do it in strange locations and see who survives......

[Psyber]

All that is getting a bit long-winded.

What I am trying to say is that in small tribal groups people tended to be more group orientated and the group awareness set certain standards of behaviour toward one another. Bigger groupings cause factions to evolve and different factions have different values and resent those whose differ friom theirs. Some small factions or individuals go feral and become totally selfish. Then societies start to break down and become increasingly fractured.

I'm talking about ways to rebuild social cohesion and cooperativeness before we have gone too far - if it isn't already too late. I'm for individual freedom, but not total ferality. That is do your own thing, just don't damage others' comfort, safety, and peace, while doing it.

Lets create a TV show based on group dynamics. We'll get a whole bunch of strangers from diverse backgrounds and put them together in one big group then split them up into smaller groups.

But, we'll do it in strange locations and see who survives......

I think the effects we see in those expereiments are influenced by the present-day cultural upbringing of the participants, the selections in favour of those who would be controversial by the programmers, and their being put up to being provocative for commercial reasons by the script writers and producers - they are Unreality Shows.

[Pseudo]

Christ when I think of the paid goons that ran the Flinders University Union and Student Association in the 1990s making those positions un-paid would not have lowered the standard any further.....impossible.

The only way you could have had animate beings of lower intellegence, would have been to elect candidates from a different species and even then it would barely have been a statiscally significant difference.

As someone who is involved with one of the clubs at a local Uni, let me say that your observations above are spot on even today. In my dealings with those who administer the clubs, I never cease to be astounded how everything - and I do mean everything, quite literally - is consistently and thoroughly buggered up by those clowns.

In recent years there has been a lot of hoo-hah about money drying up due to the voluntary student unionism, meaning that services must be drastically cut and there ain't no more money to dole out to clubs, etc. To this I say simply: HORSE$HIT. The real problem is what money they have is spent on paying the salaries, honoraria, and even severance payments of people who are either lazy, incompetent, or just plain stupid. If what little money they had was used to employ people who were actually qualified and/or could demonstrate management skills - instead of a proficiency in athletics or previous service with the union/students assoc/sports assoc - there would be no problems, not even with the VSU.

Personal opinion only. I am quite prepared to elaborate on this at great length and with much passion for the price of a pint of beer.