Governor-General, please dissolve the ACT Government [With Poll]

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Anybody who thinks the nbn is nothing more than a cool talking point for under 30s should not be allowed to vote.

Moron,

Oh dear, that’s me. Now if it was truly national, I might change my mind. But living outside a major centre, I was always going to get a low rent version, via wireless or if I am really unlucky via satellite with the problems of latency. And originally I was going to get latency in all my telephone calls, but then they quietly decided to leave the copper network going for a few more years.

I’d be quite happy with decent ADSL2, but the very poor quality connection to my house from the exchange is probably the bottleneck. It wouldn’t take squillions to fix, just a bit of motivation by Telstra.

IP

Objective said :

IrishPete said :

neanderthalsis said :

IrishPete said :

Oh dear, PantsMan is confused “no hope or chance of either being delivered on time or ever making any money (even given appropriate levels of subsidy to take in non-financial considerations).” Which is to be, subsidised or profitable? It can’t be both?

One only has to look at agricultural production in the EU or Japan to see evidence of heavily subsidised industries that are also quite profitable. I don’t think our dodgy one track tram system that will only link the city centre to one small urban centre will ever be profitable though.

No, if it is subsidised then by definition it is not profitable, unless the subsidy is less than the profit, which then begs the question why it is subsidised.

IP

Fabulous false dichotomy you’ve said there.

Do you actually have experience in economics or are you talking out your ass? The fact you obnoxiously sign all of your posts leads me to believe it’s the later. People can see your username, ya know?

It’s obnoxious to sign my posts? Wow. Some people are so sensitive.

It’s not economics, it’s arithmetic. If the government gives a $100 subsidy to a business and the business makes a $99 profit, it’s not profitable.

IP

Objective said :

Do you actually have experience in economics or are you talking out your ass? The fact you obnoxiously sign all of your posts leads me to believe it’s the later. People can see your username, ya know?

I guess he hasn’t heard about the diesel fuel rebate which is a major subsidy for Australian mining companies. Or negative gearing which is a major subsidy for landlords. Those industries are both profitable without the subsidies, and far more profitable with them.

bikhet said :

housebound said :

My personal preference would be for governments of all flavours to be limited to two terms so avoid those terrible third-term behaviours. It stops our overlords from getting that little bit too cosy. Sorry if that’s too right wing for you.

You can apply term limits to the members who make up a government, but not to the government itself. If you tried to do the latter the existing members could simply form a new party and get themselves re-elected.

While I’m generally in favour of term limits for members, though I recognise that there are problems with this, limiting the number of terms a member can serve won’t necessarily change the govenrment.

I know all that. It doesn’t mean we can’t dream of more effective limits to power, which appears to be what the OP may have been getting at.

magiccar9 said :

scoot said :

I, along with most people <30 in the ACT, would vote the same government back in.

That’s the problem. The less than 30 demographic are the ones who struggle with independent thought it seems. The current government just needs to flash something ‘hip and cool’ and they win the vote. I bet you couldn’t point me to 10% of the under 30’s that voted for The Greens/Labor based on their overall policies, instead of something like gay marriage or the NBN that is considered a ‘cool’ talking point of the time. (I’m not for/against gay marriage for the record, I just wish they would get on with the issue and make a decision and live with it)

For what it’s worth, I don’t believe any of the current parties, local or federal, deserve to be leading the country/state/territory. Until they actually start governing for the people they’re supposed to represent they’ll fail to get my vote.

Anybody who thinks the nbn is nothing more than a cool talking point for under 30s should not be allowed to vote.

Moron,

CraigT said :

IrishPete said :

It may have been convenient to lump the ALP and Greens together, but it wasn’t accurate given the Greens tore up the agreement earlier this year, there were a whole lot of other people involved (Slipper, independents), and the ALP policies and those of the Greens at Federal level are an ocean apart (an ocean full of drowning refugees from Australia’s warmongering, perhaps).

IP

Seeing as you are so concerned about accuracy, please explain which Australian warmongering is responsible for all the Sri Lankans, Iranians, and Burmese coming here on boats?

If you’re going to criticise the rightards for their irrational beliefs, your first step should be to ensure you ditch yours first. Otherwqise it’s pretty much a glass houses thing.

Anhh, cherry picking is always lovely. Let’s just exclude the obvious country’s ip was actually referring too, shall we?

morticia said :

I honestly think voting should start at 25-30, because only after some life experience and living on your own you get to see what’s really important in society – rhetorical, don’t bother flaming me. Also, many people think ACT Labor was recently voted in with a majority, sorry to disappoint you guys, they had fewer votes than Libs, and were pushed over the line by Rattenbug – yes, 1 single person decided on the ACT government for all of us.

In fact, shouldn’t the under 25s be off fighting a war somewhere rather than slouching around shopping centres, bus interchanges and supporting gay marriage.

And one single person does not decide on the ACT govt. 200,000+ voters did. Rattenbury is only one of 17 members so not sure why he gets to choose, unless its the entrenchment of the two party system that requires one side to automatically oppose the other.

wildturkeycanoe said :

Ok Pantsman, who would you like in the government then? Options are a bit limited unless you want some extreme thinking folk who wouldn’t know where the keys to this Territory are kept, let alone how to drive it.

I thought Jeremy’s wife has the keys to the Territory
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/road-rage-govt-sees-red-over-car-claim-20120909-25mrs.html

IrishPete said :

neanderthalsis said :

IrishPete said :

Oh dear, PantsMan is confused “no hope or chance of either being delivered on time or ever making any money (even given appropriate levels of subsidy to take in non-financial considerations).” Which is to be, subsidised or profitable? It can’t be both?

One only has to look at agricultural production in the EU or Japan to see evidence of heavily subsidised industries that are also quite profitable. I don’t think our dodgy one track tram system that will only link the city centre to one small urban centre will ever be profitable though.

No, if it is subsidised then by definition it is not profitable, unless the subsidy is less than the profit, which then begs the question why it is subsidised.

IP

Fabulous false dichotomy you’ve said there.

Do you actually have experience in economics or are you talking out your ass? The fact you obnoxiously sign all of your posts leads me to believe it’s the later. People can see your username, ya know?

scoot said :

I, along with most people <30 in the ACT, would vote the same government back in.

That’s the problem. The less than 30 demographic are the ones who struggle with independent thought it seems. The current government just needs to flash something ‘hip and cool’ and they win the vote. I bet you couldn’t point me to 10% of the under 30’s that voted for The Greens/Labor based on their overall policies, instead of something like gay marriage or the NBN that is considered a ‘cool’ talking point of the time. (I’m not for/against gay marriage for the record, I just wish they would get on with the issue and make a decision and live with it)

For what it’s worth, I don’t believe any of the current parties, local or federal, deserve to be leading the country/state/territory. Until they actually start governing for the people they’re supposed to represent they’ll fail to get my vote.

IrishPete said :

Every ALP supporter I know has accepted the result of the federal election with good grace.
IP

So you don’t actually know any ALP supporters then?

IrishPete said :

It may have been convenient to lump the ALP and Greens together, but it wasn’t accurate given the Greens tore up the agreement earlier this year, there were a whole lot of other people involved (Slipper, independents), and the ALP policies and those of the Greens at Federal level are an ocean apart (an ocean full of drowning refugees from Australia’s warmongering, perhaps).

IP

Seeing as you are so concerned about accuracy, please explain which Australian warmongering is responsible for all the Sri Lankans, Iranians, and Burmese coming here on boats?

If you’re going to criticise the rightards for their irrational beliefs, your first step should be to ensure you ditch yours first. Otherwqise it’s pretty much a glass houses thing.

Roundhead89 said :

Yes and when we get a recall election what will happen? Left wing Canberra will vote for Labor and The Greens yet again and nothing will be resolved. Like it or not the ACT has effectively become a one party state.

Well observed, moron. Canberra has always been left. Did you just complete your first unit in political studies?

Robertson said :

IrishPete said :

Anyway, you seem to have completely missed my point: Greens + Labor = two parties, not one. Try counting them on your fingers if that helps.

It appears his point went over your head.

It should have been blindingly obvious if you were reading the IPA/Murdoch pre-election propaganda that the climate-change-denying rampant were labelling the ALP/Greens as a single party bent on destroying the economy in favour of fringe issues.

It didn’t go over my head, it’s just inaccurate.

Indeed the people you refer to were labeling the ALP and Greens as a single party, which makes the number of people who can’t count to two rather a lot more than the couple I found on this RiotACT discussion thread…

It may have been convenient to lump the ALP and Greens together, but it wasn’t accurate given the Greens tore up the agreement earlier this year, there were a whole lot of other people involved (Slipper, independents), and the ALP policies and those of the Greens at Federal level are an ocean apart (an ocean full of drowning refugees from Australia’s warmongering, perhaps).

IP

The biggest problem with the legislative assembly is that it does not attract smart able people, I don’t believe there is anyone currently in the Assembly who would earn more money in the private sector. I cant imagine that you could say that of any other government in the country. I would go as far as saying a few of the current members went into local politics for the money.

we need quality candidates who have achieved in their real lives before entering politics, not money grabbers, or career politicians.

We need to vote more carefully at the next election, Corbel nearly lost his seat last time, he might this time, hopefully Labor have some better candidates, and on the other side I think we can do better that Guilia and (Ctrl C, Ctrl V) Dozspot.

we need a better gov and a better opposition that both have good ideas for the future of Canberra

IrishPete said :

Anyway, you seem to have completely missed my point: Greens + Labor = two parties, not one. Try counting them on your fingers if that helps.

It appears his point went over your head.

It should have been blindingly obvious if you were reading the IPA/Murdoch pre-election propaganda that the climate-change-denying rampant were labelling the ALP/Greens as a single party bent on destroying the economy in favour of fringe issues.

Meh. The author could learn a thing or two from Tony Abbott about sharpening his talking points. Most of those ones relate to issues already adjudicated on by the public at the last election. This notion that the public should be obliged to vote on the same stuff over and over until the “right” result turns up – very much from the born to rule playbook. Unattractive.

First world problems. If these are your only complaints in life then you are pretty well off.

Also, anybody who complains about human rights and protecting the environment should not be allowed to vote anyways .

Moron.

I began thinking “he does make some good points” and then cast my mind back to gems such as the Hospital implosion and the Futsal slab. Perhaps one of the problems is that just doing the stuff that really needs to be done by the Territory government is quite boring, and so those who grace the political stage need a regular supply of shiny, new and appealing (to them and their supporters) things to keep them amused.

I have some faint hope that the tougher economic times which Canberra now faces, combined with the new rates and land tax system, will mean that more people will be focused on the practicalities expected of government, and less so on what, at times, seem like “bells and whistles”. That said, there will only be change, or the prospect of it, if there is a clear plausible, coherent alternative to what we have at present.

In the meantime, I will stick to my view that self-government was essentially a fiscal fraud perpretated on the people of Canberra, and that whoever had been in power locally, it would not be easy.

OK If you think you can do better run for office at the next election – that’s what happens in democracies.

To the issues you have raised.
1) yeah the issues with ACTEW are a problem and they need to be sorted, but things like that happen under all sorts of governments and I would prefer the appropriate authorities sort it out instead of turning it into a political issue on either side
2) would need to see the figures on that but having seen bills from family members in both Sydney and Melbourne I think you may have that wrong.
3) I have no issues with the ban on plastic bags but for me its a non issue
4) most places have fines for leaving shopping trolleys in the street – I know Melbourne and Sydney do – so what?

I have yet to see a public transport system that is not highly subsidised – especially in the initial phases.

Personally I look forward to reading your policies on addressing the other issues. Fully costed, of course.

housebound said :

My personal preference would be for governments of all flavours to be limited to two terms so avoid those terrible third-term behaviours. It stops our overlords from getting that little bit too cosy. Sorry if that’s too right wing for you.

You can apply term limits to the members who make up a government, but not to the government itself. If you tried to do the latter the existing members could simply form a new party and get themselves re-elected.

While I’m generally in favour of term limits for members, though I recognise that there are problems with this, limiting the number of terms a member can serve won’t necessarily change the govenrment.

housebound said :

IrishPete said :

housebound said :

Let’s face it, the current mob believe they are untouchable and have earnt the derisive label of ‘born to rule’. We have become a one-party state in which there is close to no accountability, except on gay marriage and plastic bans.

Oh Lordy, another one of the right-wing “born to rule” types (who tries to confuse the issue by saying it’s the other side who are born to rule), but get this, they can’t count to two either!

How many more of them are there? It’s like shooting fish in barrel (though I don’t recommend that without the appropriate safety gear).

IP

So only one side of politics can believe it is the natural rules (also expressed as born to rule)? Interesting view, but obviously easier to insult someone than engage with the argument. Maybe the jibe about gay marriage and plastic bag bans distracted you. If so, I apologise for introducing distractions.

My personal preference would be for governments of all flavours to be limited to two terms so avoid those terrible third-term behaviours. It stops our overlords from getting that little bit too cosy. Sorry if that’s too right wing for you.

Let me explain – in Australia’s democracy, the group that wins the most seats forms the government. When they can’t do it on their own, they form a coalition (like the Liberals and Nationals across Australia). The group or groups who then complain that actually they won the election, are the ones who have the “born to rule” attitude, because the government was actually elected to rule.

Every ALP supporter I know has accepted the result of the federal election with good grace. Contrast that with Abbott’s whingeing for the last three years, with his arse apparently not being an attractive enough purchase for anyone to want to help him form government.

Anyway, you seem to have completely missed my point: Greens + Labor = two parties, not one. Try counting them on your fingers if that helps.

IP

IrishPete said :

housebound said :

Let’s face it, the current mob believe they are untouchable and have earnt the derisive label of ‘born to rule’. We have become a one-party state in which there is close to no accountability, except on gay marriage and plastic bans.

Oh Lordy, another one of the right-wing “born to rule” types (who tries to confuse the issue by saying it’s the other side who are born to rule), but get this, they can’t count to two either!

How many more of them are there? It’s like shooting fish in barrel (though I don’t recommend that without the appropriate safety gear).

IP

So only one side of politics can believe it is the natural rules (also expressed as born to rule)? Interesting view, but obviously easier to insult someone than engage with the argument. Maybe the jibe about gay marriage and plastic bag bans distracted you. If so, I apologise for introducing distractions.

My personal preference would be for governments of all flavours to be limited to two terms so avoid those terrible third-term behaviours. It stops our overlords from getting that little bit too cosy. Sorry if that’s too right wing for you.

housebound said :

Let’s face it, the current mob believe they are untouchable and have earnt the derisive label of ‘born to rule’. We have become a one-party state in which there is close to no accountability, except on gay marriage and plastic bans.

Oh Lordy, another one of the right-wing “born to rule” types (who tries to confuse the issue by saying it’s the other side who are born to rule), but get this, they can’t count to two either!

How many more of them are there? It’s like shooting fish in barrel (though I don’t recommend that without the appropriate safety gear).

IP

Spiral said :

IrishPete said :

No, if it is subsidised then by definition it is not profitable, unless the subsidy is less than the profit, which then begs the question why it is subsidised.

IP

With international trade it is possible for a government to subsidise an industry so that it can sell its products cheaper than those from other nations and for the volume of product sold to be sufficient that profits more than cover the cost of the subsidy.

It’s not a profit if it’s a government handout. And it’s not covering the cost of the subsidy unless it gets given back to the government, plus interest. Economics like these are what is making the rich richer and sending the rest of the world bust.

IP

thebrownstreak69 said :

I’ve said before and I’ll say again that I think focussing on things like plastic bag bans, gay marriage and human rights is a ridiculous waste of resources in a place like Canberra.

Just out of interest, how much money do you think is actually being wasted on the plastic bag ban, now that it’s in force, and has been operating for a couple of years?

If your opposition to it is that it’s ridiculous to waste time on such matters, then why are you bringing it up, since it’s a done deal? Isn’t that wasting more time on it?

scoot said :

thebrownstreak69 said :

scoot said :

Eh.. in the grand scheme of things, the ACT government has been decidedly less wasteful than other governments. I think of examples like Victoria’s Myki project cost and the federal scrapping of the NBN, all in the name of roads, of all things.

The ACT government has done a lot of good things, though, like banning plastic shopping bags, moving on a proposal for gay marriage, fines for leaving shopping trolleys around.. the list goes on!

I, along with most people <30 in the ACT, would vote the same government back in.

I thought this was meant to be sarcastic (and it should have been) until I read the last sentence.

I’m always open to ideas and suggestions, but flippantly disregarding another’s opinion, as you did mine, is generally not constructive.

Do you have something constructive to say or are just here for slander?

You’re new here, aren’t you?

IrishPete said :

No, if it is subsidised then by definition it is not profitable, unless the subsidy is less than the profit, which then begs the question why it is subsidised.

IP

With international trade it is possible for a government to subsidise an industry so that it can sell its products cheaper than those from other nations and for the volume of product sold to be sufficient that profits more than cover the cost of the subsidy.

The aim – to remove an arrogant government – is fine. The mechanism? Not so much.

Let’s face it, the current mob believe they are untouchable and have earnt the derisive label of ‘born to rule’. We have become a one-party state in which there is close to no accountability, except on gay marriage and plastic bans.

Almost all governments do great things in their first term. The second term is usually ok, but they can get cocky. The third term is where the arrogance sets in, and that is the situation we now have.

Just last week I saw two gay trolleys consumating their marriage using a plastic bag as a prophylactic.

I think one of them was a boat trolley.

Bring on the Rapture.

neanderthalsis said :

IrishPete said :

Oh dear, PantsMan is confused “no hope or chance of either being delivered on time or ever making any money (even given appropriate levels of subsidy to take in non-financial considerations).” Which is to be, subsidised or profitable? It can’t be both?

One only has to look at agricultural production in the EU or Japan to see evidence of heavily subsidised industries that are also quite profitable. I don’t think our dodgy one track tram system that will only link the city centre to one small urban centre will ever be profitable though.

No, if it is subsidised then by definition it is not profitable, unless the subsidy is less than the profit, which then begs the question why it is subsidised.

This is even more the case if it is government operated, because then it is one arm of the government subsidising another arm.

IP

Deref said :

I agree with pretty much everything there. The problem is that the alternative would be far, far worse.

Exactly.

And yet a few of them are falling all over each other to provide apologist nonsense in favour of the utter failures we currently have running our town council.

Worst healthcare, worst uptake of public schooling, and the best they can do is sit around their offices fiddling with laws that are none of their business with blatantly ego-driven self-aggrandisement in mind.

pierce said :

I read that Katy Gallagher was also secretly born in Kenya

WHERE IS THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE. WHY IS SHE HIDING IT?!??!!

Library fines are getting pretty steep, too.

Ahahahahahahahhaha

Oh wait….you’re serious? Let me laugh some more. Ahahahahahahahahha

Ok Pantsman, who would you like in the government then? Options are a bit limited unless you want some extreme thinking folk who wouldn’t know where the keys to this Territory are kept, let alone how to drive it.

I read that Katy Gallagher was also secretly born in Kenya

scoot said :

thebrownstreak69 said :

scoot said :

Eh.. in the grand scheme of things, the ACT government has been decidedly less wasteful than other governments. I think of examples like Victoria’s Myki project cost and the federal scrapping of the NBN, all in the name of roads, of all things.

The ACT government has done a lot of good things, though, like banning plastic shopping bags, moving on a proposal for gay marriage, fines for leaving shopping trolleys around.. the list goes on!

I, along with most people <30 in the ACT, would vote the same government back in.

I thought this was meant to be sarcastic (and it should have been) until I read the last sentence.

I’m always open to ideas and suggestions, but flippantly disregarding another’s opinion, as you did mine, is generally not constructive.

Do you have something constructive to say or are just here for slander?

I’ve said before and I’ll say again that I think focussing on things like plastic bag bans, gay marriage and human rights is a ridiculous waste of resources in a place like Canberra. We have big problems with health, education and are struggling with infrastructure. The govt should be focussing on getting core service delivery right first before wasting our time on fringe issues.

That’s my 2 cents. It’s different from yours, so now it’s your turn to have a go at me!

Just as well that the rest of Australia had their lights on when they went to the poll.

(Apologies to those of you from Bruce and Jerra’).

thebrownstreak69 said :

scoot said :

Eh.. in the grand scheme of things, the ACT government has been decidedly less wasteful than other governments. I think of examples like Victoria’s Myki project cost and the federal scrapping of the NBN, all in the name of roads, of all things.

The ACT government has done a lot of good things, though, like banning plastic shopping bags, moving on a proposal for gay marriage, fines for leaving shopping trolleys around.. the list goes on!

I, along with most people <30 in the ACT, would vote the same government back in.

I thought this was meant to be sarcastic (and it should have been) until I read the last sentence.

I’m always open to ideas and suggestions, but flippantly disregarding another’s opinion, as you did mine, is generally not constructive.

Do you have something constructive to say or are just here for slander?

PantsMan, what you say is what most thinking Canberrans worried about their childrens future are thinking, but the under 30’s crowd still high on the next big cause like gay marriage are not really interested in good policy, they need to move out of their parents home and try to survive on their own. Oz School indoctrination programs are damaging these kids and our country’s future. People like Scoot, just symbolise this extreme view which will put us in bankruptcy while the asian century will leave us bankrupt while hard working nations reap the rewards of our apathetic views.

I honestly think voting should start at 25-30, because only after some life experience and living on your own you get to see what’s really important in society – rhetorical, don’t bother flaming me. Also, many people think ACT Labor was recently voted in with a majority, sorry to disappoint you guys, they had fewer votes than Libs, and were pushed over the line by Rattenbug – yes, 1 single person decided on the ACT government for all of us.

I agree with pretty much everything there. The problem is that the alternative would be far, far worse.

Primal said :

They’ve also failed to deliver my hovercar. These are dark times…

My Zeppelin still uses fossil fuels…Outrageous failure.

Really, the OP must be joking. These people were elected, after all. Perhaps he should raise an Army and start a civil war so as to fill the proposed National Cemetery? The Vet Sematary needs more Vet.

Kim F said :

IrishPete said :

Roundhead89 said :

Yes and when we get a recall election what will happen? Left wing Canberra will vote for Labor and The Greens yet again and nothing will be resolved. Like it or not the ACT has effectively become a one party state.

I do love that the Right-wingers, who believe they were Born To Rule, can’t even count to two.

IP

Coffee Spray – Thanks IP

My pleasure. I hope your monitor is OK.

IP

scoot said :

Eh.. in the grand scheme of things, the ACT government has been decidedly less wasteful than other governments. I think of examples like Victoria’s Myki project cost and the federal scrapping of the NBN, all in the name of roads, of all things.

The ACT government has done a lot of good things, though, like banning plastic shopping bags, moving on a proposal for gay marriage, fines for leaving shopping trolleys around.. the list goes on!

I, along with most people <30 in the ACT, would vote the same government back in.

I thought this was meant to be sarcastic (and it should have been) until I read the last sentence.

IrishPete said :

Oh dear, PantsMan is confused “no hope or chance of either being delivered on time or ever making any money (even given appropriate levels of subsidy to take in non-financial considerations).” Which is to be, subsidised or profitable? It can’t be both?

One only has to look at agricultural production in the EU or Japan to see evidence of heavily subsidised industries that are also quite profitable. I don’t think our dodgy one track tram system that will only link the city centre to one small urban centre will ever be profitable though.

As other posts have stated, if the GG kicked them out, we’d only vote them back in. I think even if ACT Labor had the same corruption stench as NSW Labor we’d vote them back in (I’m sure if someone started to dig, all sorts of things would bubble up too).

Quite frankly Pantsman (or boy methinks) if you don’t like the currently elected government that the majority of your fellow citizens voted for and as a result have a remit to do more than implement policies that you personally find acceptable, you have the option to put your obviously superior talents, expertise and abilities up to the same set of voters and convince them you can do better.

if you really are so effing brilliant as you think you are then it should be a shoo-in and we can all live blissfully in the paradise you will create for us.

Or have I missed something deeper in your tanty spray?

IrishPete said :

Roundhead89 said :

Yes and when we get a recall election what will happen? Left wing Canberra will vote for Labor and The Greens yet again and nothing will be resolved. Like it or not the ACT has effectively become a one party state.

I do love that the Right-wingers, who believe they were Born To Rule, can’t even count to two.

IP

Coffee Spray – Thanks IP

I would love to hear Katy’s version of the “May God save the queen…” speech.

They’ve also failed to deliver my hovercar. These are dark times…

Oh dear, PantsMan is confused “no hope or chance of either being delivered on time or ever making any money (even given appropriate levels of subsidy to take in non-financial considerations).” Which is to be, subsidised or profitable? It can’t be both?

I’d be surprised if Canberrans are paying the highest utility prices in the country – your electricity and water prices are way below mine in nearby NSW. Even if you mean “of the capital cities” well I’d need to see proof, because I expect there’s a correlation between city size and price (i.e. the size of the market and competition).

I am surprised you didn’t throw in CTP insurance, court/judicial system and so on.

But you probably have nothing to compare the ACT with, so you may not realise that Government is stuffed all over Australia. If I had to give a single reason it would be Middle Class Welfare – taking money away from the provision of public services.

IP

Roundhead89 said :

Yes and when we get a recall election what will happen? Left wing Canberra will vote for Labor and The Greens yet again and nothing will be resolved. Like it or not the ACT has effectively become a one party state.

I do love that the Right-wingers, who believe they were Born To Rule, can’t even count to two.

IP

Eh.. in the grand scheme of things, the ACT government has been decidedly less wasteful than other governments. I think of examples like Victoria’s Myki project cost and the federal scrapping of the NBN, all in the name of roads, of all things.

The ACT government has done a lot of good things, though, like banning plastic shopping bags, moving on a proposal for gay marriage, fines for leaving shopping trolleys around.. the list goes on!

I, along with most people <30 in the ACT, would vote the same government back in.

Democracy is a perversion of the natural order, isn’t it?

If the ACT gets you this riled up, imagine your libertarian umbrage if you were living in Queensland under Campbell Newman…

Quite frankly, I’ve had enough of Katy, Barr, Corbell, and that court jester Rattenbury. They have surely got to be the most irresponsible, dangerous, and seemingly unaccountable excuse for a government within the Australian Federation.

This may be so, but they were still elected.

I guess it’s true, then, that people get the government they deserve.

Yes and when we get a recall election what will happen? Left wing Canberra will vote for Labor and The Greens yet again and nothing will be resolved. Like it or not the ACT has effectively become a one party state.

And this, girls and boys, is why the idea of recall elections is the spawn of Satan.

PS: Best not mentioning plastic bags if you want to avoid looking like a loon.