Well to be honest they aren't all addicts, a large % are just no hopers and drop kicks.....one couple wanted to name their child "0" (zero) and apparently you are not permitted to do so, so my daughter had to explain that to them, they abused her and carried on about it for ages until they decided to change the name from a numeral to letters, ZERO......](*,) ](*,) ](*,)

and to clarify things, my daughters experiences are not isolated, my father was a copper and my mother a nurse and i have employed people over a 26 year period........so we see a good cross section of the community and FFS this country is in trouble if we have to rely on the current generation and their offspring

That's where I think you are wrong though - crime is down, alcohol consumption by youth is down etc.

Those dropkicks you refer to have existed through history, and continue to. However, I think there are actually far less now than in the past.

Subjective experience is absolutely the worst basis on which to make generalised judgements.

Stats?

In my line of work, we're having significantly more trouble hiring labourers than we used to. The quality of the staff we do end up hiring is much lower than it was.

If anything, with mining dying, the quality should be rising.

you would think so....but it's terrible

just let an apprentice go.......he didn't want to work more than 3 days a week and didn't like getting out of bed early......

Yep, same problems. We've let go of three blokes who spent half the day on the toilet on their phones and would try and call in sick every 3rd Monday.

Might be our line or work but it sure is frustrating. We've resorted to undergraduate uni students but those poor buggers all need a good night's sleep :lol:

It's so hard to gauge limitations from a 20 minute interview.

100%!

The sad thing is, the other commonly used "filters" such as psychometric testing etc, also have a poor record in my understanding.

It's just really difficult, no matter how you do it.

Let me speak on the behalf of my generation (23yo). We are lazy as fuck. Parents have coddled us and told us we can do anything, leading to a desire to do nothing.

Previous generations were aware they had to work hard to survive. With parents not kicking their children out of home and giving them ridiculous allowances, it has led to a subconscious mentality that a good life is a right, not a privilege of hard work and sacrifice.

It's so hard to gauge limitations from a 20 minute interview.

Younger citizens should have more votes than those over 60
Date
July 6, 2016
44 reading nowRead later
Piero Moraro

inShare
submit to redditEmail articlePrintReprints & permissions


Play
0:00
/
1:46
Fullscreen
Mute
Vote counting - why so long?
The votes are cast, but counting them is no simple task. Peter Martin explains the process - and why it takes so long.
Election 2016: results, news and analysis
Live election coverage: day five of the count
We think that "one person, one vote" is the hallmark of any democratic election. However, the EU referendum and the Australian election suggest that, in the interest of democracy, we should grant more votes to younger citizens, and fewer to older ones.

Although official data is unavailable, a demographic analysis of the vote shows that, throughout Britain, places with lots of older citizens voted for Brexit, while places with younger voters ticked the "Remain" box. But the latter voters, not the former, will bear the brunt of Brexit: they are the ones for whom it will be harder to study or work in Europe, to make experiences overseas and to broaden their skills. The tens of thousands of pensioners, who, on the other hand, voted for Brexit, will have much less to lose from leaving the EU. Is it fair they all had the same say in such decision?

Younger people should be allowed to cast more votes during elections, because they have much more at stake than someone ...
Younger people should be allowed to cast more votes during elections, because they have much more at stake than someone who is already retired. Photo: Getty Images
Or consider the case of Australia. As we witnessed yet again on the lead-up to this election, the two major parties tend to ignore the interests of young voters in favour of those of the older ones. Younger voters are less concerned with "economic management", superannuation, border protection, and are interested in rising university fees, job insecurity, unaffordable housing. Not only does this disparity impact negatively on their engagement with politics; it is seriously unfair. Younger voters should rather receive more attention from politicians, because they will have to live longer with the consequences of the electoral outcome.

Younger people (say under 60) should be allowed to cast more votes during elections, because they have much more at stake than someone who is already retired. And older voters (say over 60) should accept that the views of younger citizens should have priority over their own.

Take the referendum for an Australian republic: shouldn't those who will have to live under such system for a long time be allowed more say than those who will not? Or if the decision over same-sex marriages was left to a referendum (rather than to a hollow plebiscite), shouldn't young gay people, whose lives would be deeply affected by the result, be allowed more votes than old retirees?

Plural voting is neither undemocratic, nor un-Australian. "The people" remain sovereign under this system since every citizen is still entitled (and required) to vote. However, votes are treated differently, and this should be good news for democracy. This new system doesn't rest on the hollow idea that everyone deserves the same right to vote: rather, democracy is intrinsically linked to the Australian "fair go" and the fact that Australians have the same chance to realise their plans in life. The "one person, one vote" system, however, treats people who have had their chances in life, and those who haven't yet, identically. This is not fair, and plural voting would help redress this injustice.

Why drawing the line at the age of 60? That's just an arbitrary limit! It is, indeed, an arbitrary limit, exactly like the threshold for a minimum voting age, which apparently no one finds objectionable. And yet that is even more questionable, because we deny the vote to the under 18, while under plural voting the over 60 would not be disenfranchised.

The idea of plural voting is not new. The British philosopher John Stuart Mill, one of the fathers of liberalism, already defended it in the 19th century, though he wrongly focused on education rather than age (ignoring that someone with a university degree can be less politically savvy than the average Joe). But he was right to point out that democracy should reconsider the importance of the "one person, one vote" principle.

And let's not forget that the word "democracy" refers to an ideal, a world where citizens persuade each other through rational exchange, where no money is involved, no power inequalities, no private interests.

The world in which we live is very different from that, and the"one person, one vote" idea, though embedded in everyday rhetoric, does not apply to our less-than-ideal circumstances.

Dr Piero Moraro is a lecturer in justice studies at Charles Sturt University.



Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/younger-citizens-should-be-allowed-more-votes-than-those-over-60-20160706-gpzq69.html#ixzz4DiXuxwJa
Follow us: @smh on Twitter | sydneymorningherald on Facebook

The liberal party is traditionally a conservative party, with conservative MPs, though its definitely not a requirement for membership.

That is completely untrue, and your assertion belies a lack of knowledge about history.

The history of the Liberal Party is history of the tug-of-war between "wet" and "dry" factions. It has always gone through cycles of alternating between being socially liberal, and social conservatism.

It is only because John Howard (conservative) was PM for an extended period, that the Liberal Party took a definitive turn towards social conservatism, which was extended under Abbott.

Malcolm is merely bringing the party back to a more socially liberal position, entirely in line with their history under leaders such as Andrew Peacock, and Malcolm Fraser.

The common thread of the Liberal party is that they are all economically liberal - laissez faire capitalists, and anti-union.

The Liberal Party exists, and was created, only to keep the ALP out of govt. Which is fair enough, if that is your point of view.

But the party has never been "traditionally a conservative party".

Although the coalition will probably form outright government its not to cut and dry. While the postal vote is heavily favouring the libs, last election the absentee vote, which is yet to be counted, seemed to favour labor. I dunno if that was an incumbency thing but even though the libs will probably take over labor in a few seats over the next few days, Labor could claw them back through the absentee vote. i predict they'll end up with 77 seats.

It is taking far too long for this election to be decided. Playing havoc with the stock market :(

yeah also playing havoc with getting projects started, everyone is sitting on their hands.......i have close to a million $ of work on the books that is on hold......if the ALP win the projects will evaporate......

It is taking far too long for this election to be decided. Playing havoc with the stock market :(

yeah also playing havoc with getting projects started, everyone is sitting on their hands.......i have close to a million $ of work on the books that is on hold......if the ALP win the projects will evaporate......

My directors are also fearful of the ALP.

As much as they pretend to be kings of infrastructure, confidence goes down the toilet when they're in power. The company I work for have suffered since Campbell Newman got the boot in the state election.

I have no idea why that is.