This is my main criticism of the 'mindless partisan chearleader' mentality, and my reason for starting a seoparate board for partisan issues. A party can afford a certain level of hypocrisy in it's policies, and to change policies over time in a way that does not necessarily make sense, because they inevitably represent the opinions of many people. For a person to do the same does not makle sense. I find it hard to understand how someone could be so devoted to a political party despite this.

A good example is climate change policy. The Greens were the second party I know of to support a carbon tax. Abbott has spoken out in support of a carbon tax as the cheapest way to reduce emissions. Turnbull gave the idea guarded approval also. The only person flatly rejecting the idea going into the last elecetion is Gillard, yet here we are a short time later with Gillard promoting a carbon tax and Abbott decrying it as the end of the world. How could anyone take a genuine stand on the issue while still backing one of the major parties?

In my opinion, people become party chearleaders to avoid having to think for themselves. They get an idea in their head that one of the parties stands for something, then spend the rest of the time ignoring and excusing all the policies that go against that.

I understand what you are saying, but also feel the “mindless drone” or “fanatic” attitudes with political parties will always be around - human nature.  There will always be some people that “want” to be blindly led around regardless…

For the past the past four years, Australia has been Governed by a group of  parasitical politicians that have released schemes and ideas that would embarrass an 8 year olds mentality. 

Australians don’t have a competent opposition political party, and now the people find themselves involved in voting for a group of people in a race to the bottom, not to the top - which is a sad course of events in Australia’s political history.

I find it difficult to believe that the Australian public has not woken up to the fact that ALL politicians are parasites and would “do” and “say” anything to keep themselves in power, and their noses in the tax payer funded troth.

Look at the Greens policy on animal welfare issues - a key methodology in their functioning as a party, but have totally given into the demands and whims of Labor in the cruel export of live animal trade.  If this party cannot even keep one of its “key” methodologies and principals in tact as a group, then what credibility has the party got?

I have only used one issue in one party, but here are numerous issues in the Labor,  Liberal/Nation party that could also be used to emphasis how political parties now “stand” for nothing. 

philperth2010 wrote on Sep 25^th, 2011 at 12:56pm:





The first question that should be asked in relation to anything that puts a tax on the Australian people - including a carbon tax or emissions trading scheme tax is will the reduction of these emissions or carbon use “REDUCE” overall planetary temperature and by how much?

What is the point of doing something if “no one” knows how its going to work?

freediver wrote on Sep 25^th, 2011 at 12:21pm:


Well in context, Abbott said a carbon tax was the cheapest OF two choices, an ETS or a Carbon Price...

Neither are actually THE cheapest way to reduce emissions.......Tax breaks for voluntary reductions and support (financial or tax incentives) for starting up green energy companies would both be cheaper....

And both systems are from ulterior motives.
The Carbon Tax is designed more to return the Government to surplus by 2013/14 and won't do very much to either reduce emissions or lower/stabilse world temperatures.
And the whole cap and trade/ETS system is a 'feel good' device so that countries or companies can give the appearance of doing something, without actually doing anything...

I got the point freediver - you want a policy discussion based on merits rather than based on party lines

But if you are going to do that then at least demonstrate neutrality in the matter

As it is - you are quoting Abbott based on a sound byte therefore this is evident it's a discussion based on party politics rather than policies

You are still not making any sense Maqqa.

Maqqa wrote on Sep 25^th, 2011 at 1:17pm:



It was only an example Macca - it was as far off about Gillard as well in terms of context but that was not the point.

In reality Abbot said what he had said in the context of Labor introducing carbon trading and Gillard said what she said in the context of introducing carbon trading.

FD is right both sides are pretty close to the same position except for the politics.

freediver wrote on Sep 25^th, 2011 at 5:36pm:


Then read your initial post and reference to what I wrote