A good example of the failings of the party system is population policy. Recent surveys show a majority want limitations on population growth yet both Liberal and Labor are in thrall to the concept of Big Australia. For example the new NSW premier wants another 2 million people perhaps they could live in Broken Hill.

Another issue is paralysis on decarbonising. I think for the House of Reps we should look at the independent candidates and vote for the least worst. Result fewer party hacks and time servers. The subsequent parliament might then look like an incoherent rabble then again it might get things moving in the direction people want.

We would be much better off without political parties, but it will never happen. Money!

No ttbn, it is not money, the present form of government came about
because people were fed up with civil war amongst the Barons and with
the King.
As Churchill said, Democracy is the worse form of government except
all the rest.

The author uses Global Warming as proof, well what if global warming
is a big mistake ?
After all the warming that has occurred up till recently was expected
since the minimum at the beginning of the 18th century.
So what if they have all got their knickers in a twist over the cause ?
Too many prophecies have come to nothing for anyone to bet the whole
economy on. So far the bet stands at One Trillion dollars just for Australia.

More ttbn, I agree with you on population. The idea that growth can
be driven by population increased by immigration verges on madness.
At the same time as new dams are opposed, population growth is promoted.
At the same time they are promoting a restructuring over 50 years of
the whole economy they are opposing babies ! Who do they think will
rebuild the economy ?
The politicals are failing us at present but it will come to crunch
as they become unreconciled with the public.
The Libs are following the warmists as is labour. However the man in
the street has a short temper, only as long as the next election.
Once the mad policies take hold the electrol pressure will fracture
the parties.
Making treaties to do this or that to save the planet will most likely
become the biggest blunder in history, either because of what I suggested
or because the whole thing has been over hypted, Blah, Blah, Blah !

I agree with the stated concept! Moreover, we need to end a truly asinine and BS obsessive dependence on foreign money! But fund what we need via social credit and make every dollar do seven times more work via cooperative capitalism!

Then we need to understand that every western-style economy rests solely on just two (2) support pillars, i.e., energy and capital! And the above solutions ensure neither are price gouged by tax-avoiding profit repatriating foreigners!

Capital is provided via social credit where we write the cheques, i.e., the reserve bank promises to pay, etc-etc. And can be virtually unlimited if used exclusively to fund, income-earning infrastructure of any kind! Toll roads, bridges, tunnels shipping canals and very rapid rail!

Energy needs to conform to a carbon-constrained future and needs to be cheaper than coal and not at all owned in any context by foreign nationals! Only SAFE, CLEAN, ULTRA CHEAP MSR thorium fits the foregoing criteria and basically withheld for base (BS) political purposes by all political parties! And a very good reason to follow the Author's august and sage advice!

Further to that, we need to automate like there's no tomorrow and
that means cheaper than coal, reliable 24/7 energy supply!

None of the above will happen if we continue to support whiskey and rum sodden thinkers in various political parties! Therefore I support and commend the Author's contention! TBC.
Alan B.

I agree with previous posters, who argue we just don't need to import more people to quite massively grow the economy! What we need is to attack and remove poverty in this country in all forms and guises. We also need to remove all the paper shuffling profit demanding middlemen. Who are the biggest cause of endemic generational poverty in this country, given their totally unproductive parasitical activities all but double the cost of living and or, doing business in this country!

We need to end the obsession with tax avoidance and by lowering the tax rate for everyone to an unavoidable, above a very generous, tax-free threshold, 15% flat tax. The first effect of the suggested policy, would end any need to pay tax compliance or rationalisation costs, which average around 7%. And that seven per cent could then be returned to he bottom line! And would in effect, be an adjusted tax rate of just 8% in real bottom-line outcomes!

The rest of the massive economic growth is driven by preferencing cooperative capitalism, i.e., co-ops and maximised energy dependant automation

And means, some of the co-op operated and owned, MSR thorium, would be retasked to burn nuclear waste! Waste which we/they would be paid annual millions to take! And means, almost free, CLEAN, SAFE industrial power for thousands of years.

The money is made via volume supply, not margins! Superconductors in the transmission and distribution side would play a very significant role in that envisaged outcome TBC.
Alan B.

How could we possibly "abandon" political parties when we never supported them in the first place?

The author claims that "the major parties, left and right, have lost contact with, and commitment to, the needs and beliefs of ordinary citizens.", but that too is impossible because they never ever had contact with, or commitment to, the needs and beliefs of ordinary citizens!

Indeed we should never support the political parties, how less so the major two, but this for substantial philosophical reasoning rather than for the author's ad-hoc immediate motives.

What a quaint, sweet, but totally naive idea. Yes the parties are captive of various influences, but it is the only way a parliament can work, other than a one party state.

Can you imagine getting any decision, or getting anything done with 151 individuals all pushing their own ideas. You would very soon have groups of those with at least similar ideas forming, & ultimately forming, yes, parties, if perhaps in another name.

It is also essential for the majority to have any idea of the ideology they are voting for. I have enough trouble finding enough information about the 5 candidates for my local council election, to make an informed decision on the individuals.

You often hear people stating that they wouldn't have voted for their councilor, if they had known hoe he/she would vote on some bill. How much harder with national or state elections. It is at least easier to find a parties attitude to many things, even if you can't agree with their entire platform.

I'll stick to parties, & get active if I care enough about something. There are enough of them for any one really interested to elect those with ideas that suit them. The problem is most couldn't be bothered.

Bazz,

When I said 'money' I meant that independents cannot afford to fight elections against parties supported by Big Business and other selfish organisations.

Political parties came into being only around the end of the 18th. Century.

Personally, I have no loyalty to any party in Australia today. I would prefer to vote for an independent who didn't have to tow a party line. But that is pretty futile as a majority doesn't feel the same way. So, I have to cop what the majority of lazy voters and political ignoramuses do.

You might feel something similar.

Dear Hasbeen,

To summarise what you just wrote: "taking control over my life is just too difficult, it takes too much time, yawn why should I bother, I rather hand over the control over my life to others who are not as lazy as myself."

When will you wake up? When they legislate that you must kill and eat your mother whom they consider a witch? When they forcibly install computer-chips in your brain to make sure that you do such things whenever they order you?

Yuyutsu you are much more likely to get it wrong voting for an individual, whose real opinions will often be hidden, than a party who have to keep some faith with the public.

That is of course unless your name is Gillard.

The problem with politics is the rule by the “unelected”.

Take the “Gay Airline” for example. Also the less than subtle influences of FB, Amazon etc forcing their version of how life should be, mingled with crowd control tactics which force a particular line of thinking onto the voting community. Private enterprise Censorship.
Then, on top of all the obvious above, is the influences of property developers. A main driver of population control which is entirely in the hands of politicians, who in turn are in the pocket of developers.

Now you begin to see the abysmal and irrelevant position of the voter, and the minuscule level of importance the voter has apart from which party will take the rewards of power.

There is only one way available to overthrow an unpopular regime, and it’s not by voting.
History is very clear on political outcomes. It says, if your not prepared to die for your cause, then the cause prize will be handed to those that are: The amazing accomplishments of ISIS is a stark reminder.

Dan

ISIS, Dan? Achievements!? Be papered to die for what you believe in!?
And if you believe that world is flat, that women are just goods and chattels, that Christians should be routinely beheaded!? Rape as part of warfare? And you would die for such medieval stone age beliefs?

I might die to keep our freedom-loving nation free from such evil bastardry!

Hasbeen, I understand why you and a vociferous minority want to keep the present system, where unrepresentative swill serve powerful vested interests as they pretend to serve the national interest! It's all sham and thundering theatre liberally garnished with non-core promises! And serves undeserving privilege protection, ahead of the true national interest!

I contend that a rabble would serve the national interest more faithfully than any current self-serving, self-absorbed political party! Who have set up a rule system to keep honest brokers out or failing that, work on bending and corrupting them until they lose any vestige of a moral compass?

Me? I'd want all candidates strapped to a polygraph they annunciate person and party election platforms! And failure to pass that test would ensure they were replaced with a far better class of candidates!
And far better decisions made in the national interest ahead o the aspirations of the new idea free moribund generations of the past?

Thus we'd get rationality restored, nuclear power and a turbocharged economy not taxed to a standstill and cooperative capitalism to ensure the paper shuffling, profit demanding middlemen, were ruled out!

None worse than those who corner the spot oil market, to create an totally artificial shortfall, then as demand forces prices artificially high, reap an entirely undeserved, unearned capital gains windfall the rest of us pay for in so many diverse ways!

That you can't see it tells us a lot about you and your values/patriotism or total lack thereof?
Alan B.

DD,

Good information. Add the MSM all day, every day, and subliminal messages from many sources.

How many times do we hear people say "THEY say" of "THEY reckon", when expressing something they believe, or think they should believe.

You are right of course Hasbeen. No matter how the others grind it up
it comes down to groups forming to get a compromise majority.
No good them forming that majority if there is not a sufficient number
of the public to put their marks on the ballot paper.
That is all there is to it and the others can make all sorts of waffle
about intentions but in the long run it works out.
LIFE IS A COMPROMISE !

Dear Hasbeen,

«Yuyutsu you are much more likely to get it wrong voting for an individual, whose real opinions will often be hidden, than a party who have to keep some faith with the public.»

Any representative could potentially go mad, turning 180º to betray their voters. That is why an electorate should have some mechanism whereby it could replace their representative at any time.

Better still, voters ought be able to vote directly on the issues that matter most for them. Obviously they have no time to study all parliamentarian issues, thus they should leave all other issues by default in the hands of their representative.

Should a political party suddenly decide to legislate that witches must be burned, then there is not much that voters could do to stop them, but if it is a single representative gone mad, then it is practically impossible to convince a majority of the other independent parliamentarians to join along their crazy proposition.

A rabble would be an improvement on what seems to be, the inmates out and in charge of the Asylum?

I mean, apparently prepared to pork barrel like never before? And,i.e., build a rail line with taxpayer's money, to build a great big white elephant rail line from Brisbane to Gladstone for volumes of coking coal that will need to be shipped in impossible record volumes for 100 plus years just to pay off the construction bill!

There's no harm in wandering around in cloud cooku land as long as you don't move in as a permanent resident?
Alan B.

I have realised that what we are arguing about here is why Mohammad
made his robber gang tribe into a religion.
It immediately solves all argument. Allah said so ! qed.
If you do not do as I say (Allah told me) then off with your head.
It has been remarkably successful !

Term Limits would fix most of the issues raised in this fine diagnostic article. Term limits clarify the motivations for one's involvement in politics. And let's face it, the government doesn't "hold the hose" any more than BHPs Board manages accounts receivable. The public service knows how to manage the company, Government's are for the guidance of policy direction.

Two terms?

Two terms?
Anthony Bishop,
Ok with a non-performing outfit but what if it is a good Government ? I think it more beneficial all round if Public servants did not vote !

Talking of political parties; have you seen the interviews with Barnaby Joyce on TV today.
Did you notice the very different tenor of his speech ?
He was in a very serious mood. Quite clearly he is very engaged in
getting a good decision and policy.
That is the attitude we want from our politicians, not the political point winning.
I can see that this decision has very serious implications.