Until one of the major parties gets some decent policies, none of them deserve to govern on their own. But if a government actually governs well then the main party in the coalition would probably be able to gain an absolute majority next time round, particularly if their coalition partner's not standing in most seats (as is the case with the SNP).

Well, when born to rule parties put winning first and foremost, followed by party loyalty, followed by an idiotic ideological imperative, followed by suppressing dissent and the uncivilized rubbishing of ideas that don't fit the increasingly narrow ideological fit, and those who present them!

And when courage of conviction has disappeared with the advent of the media cycle, thirty second media breaks, and poll group driven policies!

Gone are proactive progressive eloquent advocates with revolutionary or reformist ideas, who can take the population with them!

Replaced by (missing in action) lightweight reactionaries, who swing with the prevailing populist idea!

And blame shift with every opportunity! Rather than present a (persona non gratia) new idea!

Little wonder some parties and their endless non core promises are being increasingly rejected!

The rural sector seems to be going to hell in a hand basket, with rural towns and rural industries dying in front of our eyes!

Yet the Nats remain in the coalition and roll over and beg for a tummy rub; when in fact they'd weld more power and influence outside it!

And indeed regain the support they seem to be losing to the independents! But no, they'd sooner remain inside the "tent" and apply their (emperors new clothes) influence from there!

And think a few new roads inside our city environs makes up for the lost railways, industries and towns; and the me/me mindset!

And then wonder why they and the same old same old is being increasingly rejected!

What do they think will happen to them and their minor party support, when optional preferencing replaces the dog wagging the tail compulsory preferencing we're stuck with for the moment; which has to go if the major parties would exercise any form of control in the senate!
Rhrosty.

"why can't the parties build support bases that are broad and deep?

Maybe because their core policies are inherently anti-British: Eurocracy, globalisation, multiculturalism.

The same is true in other Western countries.

Australia is a mirror image, only lacking the Eurocracy, but there are proposals for a Asian-Pacific doppelganger, which I'm sure the Tweedles would sign up for in a heartbeat (without consulting "the people" of course).

Which is even more ludicrous than the European Union, considering the range of unrelated cultures/civilisations within Asia/Oceania.
At least Europeans are related to each other.

The problem really is that we don't truly have a DEMO-cracy.

If we did, there'd be primarily referenda/plebiscite-based policies/laws, with elected politicians being mere "managers/implementers" of the decisions of the people, rather than the decision makers themselves.

That will never happen in our lifetime, despite the ease of computer technology in enabling it.
The parties and their principal participants have too much to lose (power, fame, money, connections, etc.).

VK3AUU "the God which you worship is the same God"

Same God, different theology.
Jim Jones had the same God as Mother Teresa.
It's not the God that poses any potential threat, but the believers.
In the world today, which believers do you think pose the most threat?

"so vehemently revered by your Muslim enemies."

It is they that define *us* as their enemies.

However tolerant we are, Muslims will never truly tolerate other religions, the non-religious [myself], self-defined women, sexual minorities [myself], etc.

This wasn't a problem in 1886, with 3 camel drivers and 1 haberdasher.
It will be a problem with 500,000+ of them.

Why should I "tolerate" anyone that would happily chop off my heretical, perverted head and dance around my "Satanic" corpse?

David

secularist murder millions of unborn and others because they are to blind to see that one day they will face their Creator. That is why secularist/socialist often apologise for Islam while being totally Christophobic. They are both death cults.

Runner and reality are not friends, arguing with him is like shouting at the wind.

To the article, i think the author is confused multi party parliaments create compromise and more balanced representation not less it.

Finally, if Christians feel marginalized then can can only say that runner a great example why this is the case. He believes his world view is beyond reproach and the rest of us are evil, killers even. There is no talking or common ground there.Runner like most fundies would take us back to the stone age if he could.

“In the end, obsession leads some of us to use our freedom to deny freedom to others, by shouting down their voices or demanding them access. This is intellectual fascism.

Former Minister for Education, Michael Gove told the Daily Telegraph this week that people of Christian faith are marginalised in certain debates because they are intimidated.”

Indeed!

The LGBT lobby’s bullying tactics are a case in point. The silent British majority are still shell-shocked by supposed Conservative PM Cameron caving into the LGBT lobby’s demand for the legalisation of same-sex ‘marriage’, and now they have to suffer the consequences.

Brendan O’Neill frankly observed that wherever same-sex ‘marriage’ has been legalised, “it has battered freedom, not boosted it. Debate has been chilled, dissenters harried, critics tear-gassed. … There are awkward questions the ‘freedom to marry’ folks just can’t answer. Like: if gay marriage is a liberal cause, how come it’s been attended by authoritarianism wherever it’s been introduced?” (Brendan O’Neill, “Gay marriage and the death of freedom”, The Spectator, 6 December 2014 URL http://www.spectator.co.uk/australia/australia-features/9390702/gay-marriage-and-the-death-of-freedom/