Yes Everald, and right on the money!

It's as if the electorate has stuck its collective out of the widow and roared into the night; we have had more than enough and just aren't going to take anymore!

We will no longer go meekly into the night/cop it sweet, but exercise such power as we do have; and for as long as we need to, to get very different outcomes!

Try and stop me exercising the one right you can't remove, or talk me out of voting!

And patently not those produced by patently born to rule, tin eared petty tyrants and a collection of manifestly vacuous rubber stamps, merely masquerading as responsible Representatives, who put the electorate first and foremost, followed by the true national interest, allegedly!?

No more BS, broken promise;, no more endless non core promises; the endless jockeying for power; or more power and fewer rights for Joe public! Moving like our money and former purchasing power, toward the higher end of town.

The patent nepotism/cronyism/favoring the richest at the expense of those with the least; arguably jumping on Murdoch's string; (yes Sir, how high Sir) the absolute lack of real vision/fair-mindedness, or original ideas; or even just another idea; and well, the list is very long, and word limits apply!
Rhrosty.

I thought at the start that Everald was onto something, but then he goes and gets it wrong.

Why doesn't anyone READ the Constitution?

It says in the simplest possible anglo-saxon words in Section 64 that the Prime Minister holds office during the pleasure of the Governor-General. I know that Kerr demeaned his office by giving reasons, instead of just saying "The Prime Minister holds office during my pleasure. He has displeased me, and therefore I have dismissed him."

Surely the real problem in politics is that no party can or will implement the simple program that the people want. This can be summed up as:

1. Treble government spending.

2. Abolish all taxation, with any deficiency in public finances being made up from the sale of politicians' assets.

3. Balance the budget.

4. Pay off the national debt.

No party ever attempts to implement this. Coupled with the current need for a substantial cut in the living standard of ordinary people, (with no reduction for the rich), you end up with both parties more or less doing the same thing, with the point of the game being to ensure that the other side gets the blame.

We already have one of the oldest and greatest Constitutions in the world, that. unlike the USA, makes sure there can never be a deadlock. Any dismissal of a PM must mean that there will be an immediate election, so the people always have the final say.

It is only politicians that think they are entitled to a three year term. They are not. All they are entitled to is a maximum of three years, or such shorter length that the GG prescribes. And as for a four year term, that would require a referendum, so forget it.

Real reform, such as recall and citizen initiated referendum, will never come about, as it would be strongly opposed by all politicians.

It also needs to be pointed out that until politicians regain a reasonable level of esteem you can forget about a republic, as that requires a referendum as well.

God save the Queen!

I agree with the predictions but I think the author's historical view is a bit naive. Ever since the establishment of Parliament opposing parties have loathed each other and resorted to dirty tricks. The fact that there have been many personal friendships across party lines doesn't alter the fact that this is an adversarial system; and when you pay people to be adversaries, then the ones who are best at it will rise to power.

What's happening now, I think, is that for the first time a substantial minority of voters are better-paid, better-educated and better informed than their representatives, and it's become much easier for them to see how much time and money is wasted on bribes, incentives and the pursuit of ideological purity rather than simply getting on with it and running the bloody country. Or state. We can expect a long series of one-term governments, up to the point where one or both parties say: "Stuff this for a game of soldiers. Let's do the rational thing, and see what happens."

I've thought for many years that one very effective way to reform government would be to include a 'None of the Above' option on the ballot.

Anyone who ever looses to 'None of the Above' is automatically banned from running for office ever again. Once the people have said we don't want you, your gone from politics.

This approach would force those in the partys who choose the candidates to ask themselves the question, "can he beat none of the above". We would no longer have to choose between the lesser of two evils. The Party would be forced to choose a popular candidate the people support.

Of course the big flaw in my proposal is that it would require politicians to support it and to put forward the necessary legislation and that ain't going to happen, given most of them would be signing away their future.

Conservative hippie, given your preferred option is unavailable, the next best thing and arguably even more powerful as a message, is to simply put the incumbent last!

We're told that very young, extremely immature people are sometimes throwing away the only right they have by refusing to vote, or simply voting informal.

And as a 40% voting block, hold within their very hands the power to decide all elections.

And given young people are still usually idealistic enough to vote or lean towards the left, encouraged by the conservative side of politics to continue with their present practice!? (Please don't vote, I beg you don't vote, cause I want to keep my seat, and the generous pay packet it generates; and or, who knows what they're thinking out there in mugsville)

However, if they all rocked up to their respective polling booths on election day and simply placed the incumbent last; it would only be a question of time before the "public servants" started heeding their masters call; as opposed to the usual lip service.

Moreover, I think all senior public servant staff positions should vacate with every election call, and be subject to a rehiring at the whim and caprice of the new or returned member; and fair, given their advice is what often decides directions or outcomes!

And somebody must explain to the dropkicks, that requiring more or greater services will almost invariably result in more tax, or just some tax for those who routinely avoid their share or a fair share!

Coupled to, eliminated waste and duplication!

And for mine, that's best accomplished by simply eliminating the double handling middle tier of government!

And having done that; and without costing a single service, put the 70 odd billions per that simple pragmatism would save, to far better use; i.e., roll out rapid rail, thorium power projects and other infrastructure; and overdue reform, that results in a mass return to these shores, by our forgone manufacturing sector!
Rhrosty.