Pure Conjecture

[Flamethrower]

So, where does the buck stop?? In any form of society there needs to be a leader.




A committe was formed to build a better horse.


The best they could build was a camel.

[BLR]

So, where does the buck stop?? In any form of society there needs to be a leader.

On the leaders of the respective parties, if they decide to build a Bell Tower and it turns out shite the buck stops at the party that put forward the proposal. The lack of a visible leading party will cause each seat member to work harder as they realise that they are working for their individual seats and not for the party to win overall power. Also certain wank job projects to increase the prestige of the party and to win elections ala Bell Tower, Convention centre, shore line project, shite stadium, will no longer be an issue as the credit from such projects will not be given to one party. This will cause parliament to be more practical in their spending and build the things which WA really needs.

Democracy is based on representation of the people, the need for a leader only comes through later Western society where a central power was deemed to be necessary to keep the populace under the thumb.

[Flamethrower]

What will happen about the camel???

[Swee_82]

One thing to not lose sight of is the Petition - at the end of the day a petition presented to a member of Parliament must be presented to the Parliament.

We aren't finished yet - we have only just begun.

Exactly, the petition will go to parliament, in whatever shape parliament's in by the time it sits again, but whatever the outcome, the chamber it is presented to will look alot different to the one we thought it would when the whole idea was hatched.

[jargan83]

my understanding of US political system was that the president of the US can't do what he wants anyway. He still has to answer to the House of Rep's and the US Senate. If the president wants to make a law he still has to put it through the 2 houses. Being president doesn't give a licence to circumvent democracy. Having the Republicans in control of both houses is what gives Bust his licence to do anything, but since last year when the Democrats gained control of one (or was it both) effectively removed that licence from the US president.
Posted via Mobile Device

[AndyS]

What is the most appropriate direction for Stadium Infrastructure in WA?

There are a few messages out of last weekend, but a big one is "stop hoarding the money and put it to use" (certainly if the Libs make it in, they'll be glad Ripper built them such a fund for looking governmental with!). So, Rugby's approach should be:

• We are a state that grows on immigration;
• Most of that comes from Europe, NZ, SA, NSW and Q'ld rather than Vic and South Australia;
• These locations play rectangular sports and are unsupported by the current arrangement;
• These sports are the football codes with a genuine international profile, so;
• The best advertisement and investment for Perth to attract both visitors and immigrants would be a really good rectangular ground - something that is commented on each time a match is shown internationally (as opposed to the current "great support, shame about the facilities")

And it would save money.

That said, I do actually believe Perth deserves and needs a true multi-purpose stadium. I even accept that, almost by definition, it will actually be a single purpose stadium (if not in name) that has features added to make it suck less for other sports - it is in the nature of the sports that they are trying to simultaneously cater for. But if Aussie rules are the priority tenant, they shouldn't actually control the facility and a one-size-fits-all approach is stupid. Build it once everyone has their day-to-day requirements addressed, then build something that addresses AFL day-to-day and everyone else for special.

[brokendown gunfighter]

What will happen about the camel???

a hump will be removed

[shasta]

a hump will be removed

Leaving us with a Dromedary when a horse is what was needed.

[BLR]

my understanding of US political system was that the president of the US can't do what he wants anyway. He still has to answer to the House of Rep's and the US Senate. If the president wants to make a law he still has to put it through the 2 houses. Being president doesn't give a licence to circumvent democracy. Having the Republicans in control of both houses is what gives Bust his licence to do anything, but since last year when the Democrats gained control of one (or was it both) effectively removed that licence from the US president.

Well there is supposed to be a counter balance to the power that the President has, as it is essentially a common law system like ours.

However, as far as that goes, the current President has got away with a large amount of stuff which he shouldn't have eg. the Patriot act.

He has also been appointing people to departments who are supposed to be unbiased by giving them a test of sorts to see how susceptable they are to Republicans ideas. Not to mention he can appoint Supreme court judges, so basically he is enforcing his will on the highest court in the land.

Finally the veto power given to the President basically makes him the lawmaker, he is presented a bill and he can choose to put it into law or not.

There is nothing like the power that the President has in Australian politics. How many times does the President argue his views in congress like the Premier or Prime Minister does every day? Australia is already running a system of committee, what would change by simply taking away a ruling party title? The parliament would still vote on the various issues exactly as they do now, the only real difference is that it stops the self gratifying projects that are not needed. Plus tax budgets would be much more fair and economical as everyone would have a say, and parties, once again will not aim to get excessive budgets to prove that they are good with money, although it proves they are inefficient economically...

[shasta]

WAFC is ingrained in the WA political system- has it always been like this, or is it more a Labor thing?

Definitely not just Labor Swee. Neal Fong took over from Barry Mcinnon at the WAFC. The former Liberal Premier was, IIRC, appointed to the job shortly after resigning from politics after losing the leadership of the liberal party to one Richard Court. Also, & again IIRC, the same Barry McKinnon was Liberal leader or maybe Sports Minister when the government bailed out an insolvent football WAFA(?) and instituted the WAFC with taxpayer moneys.

Not a hundred percent sure on every bit of that history. But it's close.

[thunderchicken9]

"Finally the veto power given to the President basically makes him the lawmaker, he is presented a bill and he can choose to put it into law or not."

.. Congress has the power to override any Presidential veto... as well as having the ability to start the impeachment process on any president who breaks the law.. The problem here in the US is, in spite of all the rhetoric, the 2 major parties have more in common than they would like us to think..is Australia the same? I mean, these guys up here have been accusing each other of the same things for almost 80 years.. yet not much changes when one or the other gains a majority....

[BLR]

So congress gives a law to the President who can veto it, and then congress can overturn the veto, how does that work? My understanding of the veto is he denies the changes, tells congress what his grievances are and then they can possibly force it through again but in a different form.

It's pretty much the same over here tc9, Labor is the party of the working class, the unions can pretty much get the Labor to do its bidding. While the Liberals (ironically given the meaning used in the US) is very much like the Republicans, basically all about the free market and isn't as socialist as Labor.

Your split is between the rich religious Republicans and the rich bleeding heart Democrats while ours is between union dominated Labor and the more corporate minded Liberals. It's probably a bit more clean cut in Australia, as the basis of the Republican party (small government interference) has essentially been disregarded the last few years so there is no real difference between the two.

[Thequeerone]

A Brief Recent History Thing

Stadium - Both parties got a shock with our petition and some of TG's emails - the pollies in the Northern Suburbs - highly marginal territory with heaps of immigrants have expressed their concern about the Stadium - also Carps made a fatal bloop when it was shown that the new stadium can't be used for the commonwealth games.

Another insteresting footnote to the entire saga is that Labor have been touting the new stadium over in Canberra looking for Federal Money - NONE has been forthcoming to date - don't know why but Rudd is into Soccer !

Crowd attendances for both the Weagles and Dockers are down - that makes any re-examination of the figures really really difficult.

Rugby WA is in big trouble with the redevelopment of AK Reserve - it was supposed to cost 16 million complete - however just cleaning the land is going to cost $10 instead of $1.5 million.

What would I like to see happen
Liberal win - talk to RugbyWa - get a full picture including projections of Rugby Tourist figures once we make finals.
They talk to the Feds and figure out how to get Federal funding for the AFL superstadium and give Perth a chance to get a major event such as the commonwealth games - which would probably justify the Rectangular component of any stadium - again tourism dollar projections help enormously with justifying this.

Re- examine the finical viability of the Stadium and scale it back to 50,000 with the possibility of another 15,000 seats in 5/10 years - do the railways and TV boxes first

What I reckon will happen:
RugbyWA are so scared of losing AK funding that they won't press the stadium issue at this time.

[thunderchicken9]

Very well stated BLR.. yeah, Congress needs a 2/3rds vote to overturn the Prez's veto, but it has happened before. An overturned veto then dies. Congress has the final word... During the 80s our party lines sort of intermingled, as the old-fashioned Southern Democrats found themselves in alliance with most Republicans... Northern Republicans (Yankees), meanwhile, found themselves replacing the old moderate Demos... EEEKE! Nowadays, it's easier just to figure at which point of the Bell Curve your interests meet.. I'm not a big fan of this so-called bipartisanship. seems to be the worst of both worlds...and as you so correctly pointed out, its the rich opposing the rich..hope you have a better go of things, as your ideas are more well-defined...

[Swee_82]

Well, no decisions have been made but the bye-bye Albino Pachyderm movement is gaining steam.

As usual, the West is bleating about 'poor old footy' but there's a real opportunity here to go for a plan like Andy proposed above- get the day to day needs of everyone sorted and THEN worry about a grand iconic stadium.

The West Blog piece is here - leave a comment and remind people there's more than footy to this town!

"Confirming that it is merely a naive cliché that sport and politics should not mix, particularly if the pollies are paying sport’s bills, three powerful interviewees potentially set back football’s cause by what could be decades.


WA football administrators have been apprehensive for the past week over the chances of the $1.1 billion stadium project continuing under a new State Government hamstrung by its commitment to the regional-focused Nationals.

And the award for most over-the-top hyperbole for the week goes to:

These are dark days for football.

The time was right for a new stadium to cater for the expanding AFL clubs and better house the tens of thousands of fans who want to watch the game.

If is doesn’t happen now, it may not happen for decades.