“The Democrats hit the iceberg some time ago, they need to stop taking water before they bother plotting a new course.”

I would agree with this, but add that it is not just the Democrats that need to do some re-thinking. The Democrats were originally created to “keep the bastards honest”, which was a honourable enough exercise which unfortunately has failed. The idea was to introduce a third political party to try and keep the two existing political parties from becoming corrupt, but it didn’t work for that long.

So we are now back to a 2 party system, that is not necessarily democratic, nor is it a system that gives more power to the people, (and not the state).

A party could have a Pro-Life policy, and a Pro-Nuke policy at the same time. The other party could have a Pro-Choice policy, and an Anti-Nuke policy at the same time. Now if someone liked the Pro-Life part, and didn’t like the Pro-Nuke part, then which party should they vote for. That is the dilemma.

It is my guess that there would actually be very few people in society who are fully paid-up members and supporters of the Liberals, or the Nationals, or the Labor party. Therefore these organisations (or political parties) are really minority groups who have the rest of us hamstrung, because we have to vote for them.

Either or all parties can indulge in lies, propaganda, indoctrination, misinformation, dirty politics, corruption etc. These parties can also play “personality” politics, whereby the leader of the party is portrayed as being just fantastic, so every candidate of that party should be elected at election time.

It’s a very sordid state of affairs, and I would think that it is time to reduce political parties from government as much as possible, and put more government back into the hands of the people as much as possible.

How? Well call me names, but these are my ideas:-

- Take political parties out of the Senate and have independents only in the Senate
- Introduce secrete ballot in both the Senate and the House of Representatives
- Have more public referendums, and more public enquiries.
- Government to actually carry out the results of the referendums, or the recommendations enquiries.
- Put “none of the above” on the bottom of each ballot paper, and if the majority of people tick “none of the above” then the election has to be held again.

Those are some suggestions for the Democrats to consider, because I don’t think they will be able to resurrect themselves. If they or their supporters want more honesty in government, then they must try and keep political parties out of government to start with, and keep the power with the people.

The who ???????....................

The Who? You know, anyone of voting age.

Those big enough and educated enough to be able to decide the country’s destiny, and not become so dependant on a small number of professional politicians, who like to indulge in the normal things professional politicians indulge in. We've had these professional politicians now for over 100 yrs.

We’ve had “Lies”.
We’ve had “Keeping the Bastards Honest”.
We’ve had “The Biff”.

But none have worked all that well, so maybe time for a different set of methods and principles to be used within government.

Quite frankly, who cares! The Democrats have been in terminal decline for years; view Andrew Murrary's timeline chart available by accessing his article.

It seems the only ones really worried are the Democrats elected members. Self interest anyone?

The Demcrats have lost their place in the political landscape because their media space was cleverly cannabilsed by The Greens.

Unable to counter that threat, the Democrats were on the fast-track to irrelevance.

Roberto

Timkins
my 'the who' bit was just a slap at the Democrats.. I mean they just don't count any more so I was underscoring that by asking if they still exist.. so to speak.
I wasn't commenting on what u said.

Boaz,
I too think the Democrats are a bit of a spent force at present, and I get the feeling that a job was done on them, as they were becoming too uncomfortable for some. I think that if they do re-build, then probably another job will be done to knock them over again.

So if they sincerely want to keep government honest, they have to do some lateral thinking, and look at what creates dishonesty in government to start with. Not enough people power, and too much power held by a few professional politicians, (who then hold the rest of us to ransom), obviously creates dishonesty in government.

To have some democracy, best to keep political parties out of government as much as possible.

Interesting view their Timkins

"I get the feeling that a job was done on them, as they were becoming too uncomfortable for some. "

a bit of conspiracy theory - who put the grog in Bartletts Cocoa?

The Democrats were always a party to run down other peoples opinons because they had none of their own

They did not want to govern
They just wanted to annoy those who did
They were little more than a boil on the butt of politics
I guess they have, at last, been lanced.

I think they were just too full of themselves and they did the job of self destruction :)
Andrew Murray seems ok, and Aiden Wridgeway, unless u guys know things that I don't. I hope any of them who are decent will find opportunity for expression in other fields.
But as a party they were more of the carbunkle nature as far as I'm concerned.
I look to family first to be the 'keeping them honest' force and to also be a broker of some other more principled ideas.

Col, Boaz,
Nothing wrong with watchdog groups, and I suppose the Democrats were originally a watchdog type political group. Maybe the Family First party is similar.

But it is also best not to have thinking caught in a rut. Any political party can become corrupt in time, so it is best to be continuously thinking of ways of having more “people power” in government, and less “political party” power.

yes, and with that in mind Timkins I would be legislating that the Senate be returned to the PEOPLE, with no one standing for it allowed to be a member of a political party !

So, the Democrats are sinking...

Good. Let them sink.
Goodbye and good riddance.

AK

"The Demcrats have lost their place in the political landscape because their media space was cleverly cannabilsed by The Greens."

I agree with the above comment posted by robertomelbourne1

What worries me more about the Greens is that they appear to be a vehicle for the homosexual lobbyists. Here in WA they held the balance of power in the upper house. They supported the Labor Government on legislation to change the weighting of votes between city and country electorates.

In return for this they got changes to sex crimes legislation which particularly addressed issues such as the age of consent which for males was reduced from 21 to 16. Other issues were also changed but I cant recall what they were. It was a change to the legislation made somewhat surprisingly in the early days of the Government. Furthermore it was introduced with unseemly haste and lack of public awareness or debate.

It seems that almost all the Green politicians in WA are known to be gay. I'm not anti gay but resent the infiltration of a worthwhile political group with people who appear to have an agenda of their own and are willing to use the green cause to achieve that end.

I'd like to vote Green but I'm not willing to allow homosexuals to have increased opportunities to practice predatory behaviour.

Sand.. we may not see eye to eye on somethings, but ur post this time is spot on.
Its hard to avoid 'agenda's these days in politics, it almost boils down to 'which' agenda your more comfortable with.
May I recommend Family First as a viable alternative to Greens.
I'm not a member, but I am attracted to their more principled approach. I have written to them to 'green up' their policies, particularly in regard to alternative energy.

Sandgroper,
These issues would be classic case of just how contorted politics has become. The political parties now have so many deals being made between themselves, that a member of the public has minimal idea of which policies they are actually voting for when they vote for a candidate of a political party.

If someone dares to vote “below the line” for the senate, then they have really no idea of who they are actually voting for, or what policies they are voting for, because of all the preferential deals going on between the parties, (or even if they vote above the line for that matter).

The whole thing has become a total scam. We need something a lot different to keep them honest than what we have presently got.

Natasha Stott Despoya embodied all that was surreal and shallow about the Australian Democrats. Isolated from the insecurity and toughness of the real world, having worked in one taxpayer-funded political job after another, Despoya was never able to embody a philosophy of self-reliance and self-help that is the natural philosophy for a third party of the radical centre.

Instead, big government, faith in a benevolent bureaucracy, and a disdain for the everyday concerns of suburban, non-professional Australians, came to prevail as the Democrat "ideology". Noel Pearson's critique of this 'progressivism' is the sharpest to yet emerge in Australia, and has all but killed off this progressivist agenda in terms of any intellectual and ethical standing. The death of the Democrats is not just a matter of organisational incompetence, it is also a consequence of the collapse of the ideology that they espoused over the last 10 years.

Richard Deniss misses all this. Indeed his Australia Institute is an organisation committed to the same ideology, so we shall have to look to other commentators for a fuller assesment of the Democrat debacle. In the meantime, a genuine third party of the radical centre remains critically important for a renewal of Australian politics and society.

Vern Hughes
vern@peoplepower.org.au

Vern,
You seem to be arguing that we need more of what we have had in the past. When it comes to politics in Australia, I can’t think of much worse.

The public should not have to hope that legislation is properly prepared in the House of Reps, and then hope that it is thoroughly reviewed in the Senate before it is finally approved. The public should be able to “expect” that these things occur, and not just "hope" that they occur (as the public ususally has to cope with that legislation after it has been approved)

Having a third political party is not good enough to expect or guarantee that parliament will work adequately. I think that a number of other things are necessary also, as well as having a third political party

I can't let the homophobic and other silly comments of 'Sandgroper' go unremarked upon.

Firstly, and despite Sandgroper's claim, the WA Greens did not ultimately support the ALP's attempts to bring about the equitable and sensible 'one-vote-one-value' franchise (much to my deep regret), and the dreadful and unfair gerrymander continues in WA.

Secondly, his claim that, "most WA Greens seem to be homosexual" is piffle. There are five Greens in state parliament and only one of them, Ms Giz Watson, is lesbian.

By contrast, Labor has two openly gay members - John Hyde MLA and Louise Pratt MLC.

There are a greater total number of closeted gay and lesbian MP's in both the ALP and Coalition. But does any of this matter?

'Sandgropers' alarmist claims that, "homosexuals are infiltrating parliament" and "pushing their agenda", is reminiscent of anti-Semitism and the fear mongering directed at Jews. And for the same reasons.

Finally, 'Sandgropers' claim that, "he is not anti-gay", is laughable, given the appalling allegation of sexual molestation he levels at gay men.

By saying that homosexuals engage in "predatory behavior" (in the context of the age of consent debate), 'sandgroper' is saying that gay men are inclined to molest boys. But he ignores the fact that the consent age for girls is 16 (same as it now is for gay males), yet he doesn't suggest this allows for "predatory behaviour" from heterosexual males. Bit of a double standard eh? Show me the evidence from any State or Territory (all of which now have equal ages of consent, mostly set at 16), that shows boys are being molested by gay men as a result. There is NO evidence for this.

'Sandgropers argument is a bit like saying, "I'm not racist, but I think blacks need a higher age of consent to protect whites from their predatory behaviour."

Kelpie PERTH

Kelpie
u justshowed why there is no point in trying to reason with people about homosexual, incestual and bestial behavior. If people wish to persue it..they will.
The best solution is to legislate based on democratic power.
I get weary of the 'charge and counter charge' as u have done with Sandgroper. It will always boil down to "we don't like living in a community which recognizes deviate sexual behavior of any kind."

and by golly, if we can change the social fabric.. we will.

Democrats' sinking is well deserved. Credit to the Australian people. Power without accountability (or even responsibility), is soooo opposite to “keeping the bastards honest”.

As someone else before me so wisely said - good riddance.

Timithy occasionally says something worth listening to when he is not banging on about his personal problems with women. Some of this thoughts on reforming the political/electoral process are interesting if not practical, such as for example, introducing the secret ballot into the parliament for voting on legislation. The electronic facilities are already there at each seat in each house, and could easily be converted to allow individual secret and instanteous voting. This would revolutionise the parliamentary process, and allow many more pollies to defy the party line and "cross the floor". The only drawback would be that we the voters would not know how our representatives voted to express our interests. Kind of undermines the notion of representative democracy doesn't it?

Timithy also suggests more referendums and more inquiries. To defray costs, we could have a series of constitutional referendums at the same time as federal elections, or plebiscites for non-constitutional issues. This is possible but very risky politically. As to parliamentary inquiries, after July when the government takes over the Senate, you can kiss public accountability goodbye. There will be no more inquiries into government policy and administration.

Timithy has also suggested here and elsewhere that political parties be removed from the Senate. Sorry Timithy, this is very naive (you cannot stop people from talking to each other and forming consensus) and totally undemocratic (remember "freedom of association"?)

Finally, Timithy's suggestion that the ballot paper should have the "none of the above" option would only open to the door to a massive increase in informal voting, and strengthen the case for voluntary voting, which I am not sure he agrees with (and see my post on compulsory voting on Tim Martyn's last essay on OLO). In any case, this has been discussed at length on many occasions in the parliamentary Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters and dismissed as impractical (go to the australian parliament house website Timithy and find the JSCEM for more background.

Gracey,
Find one bit of evidence where it can be said that I have a “personal” problem with women. I, and many other people including many women, have a very great problem with the hypocrisy of many feminists, which is quite different, as feminists do not necessarily represent women, and certainly not men.

However you have “found fault”,(or tried to), with my suggestions for reform of our so called democracy, but you have not offered any suggestions of your own. Typical?

There are of course advantages and disadvantages with my suggestions, but with added detail, then I would think the advantages would far outweigh the disadvantages, and far outweigh what we have presently got.

Who did you vote for at the last election, or don’t you know, because of all the backroom preference deals that went on between the political parties (see http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=3049#3082), and do you think the Senate is worth having, or is it now just an expensive rubber stamp for the House of Representatives.

Personally I think that having 76 independents in the Senate, would eventually bring about much more democracy than having only 2 (sometimes 3) political parties in parliament.

Timithy, I don't think you really understand the senate voting system from your previous posts. Let me try to explain.

If you vote "above the line" for the senate then you are allowing your preferences to be allocated during the count according to the party "group voting ticket". Very few people bother to consult the party GTVs displayed, by law, in every polling booth, before voting because they trust their party to allocate preferences in accordance with party policy. Hence some voters are surprised to find where their preferences eventually go. This was particulary the case in Victoria in 2004 when many ALP voters who voted "above the line" on the ALP GTV were disgusted to find that their preferences went to Family First.

If you vote "below the line" for the senate, then you make the decision about where your preferences go. In my view, voters should always vote below the line. The problem is that the risk of making your vote informal is high, with the large number of candidates to mark in proper sequence.

As to abolishing the senate altogether, no thanks. In the 1970s, during the Fraser years, the senate committee system was properly established and expanded, and from that time on, the senate has served a very useful purpose in scrutinising government legislation and "keeping the bastards honest" (except when the government dominates the senate as it will post July). Unicameral governments are potentially dangerous, see Queensland under Jo Bjelke-Petersen.

And I repeat, you cannot just abolish political parties, Timithy. This would be held unconstitutional in a representative democracy, as it would breach one of our fundamental freedoms, the right to free association. You can however, vote for independents and try to persuade others to your view.

You really should have a look at the many thousands of submissions australian citizens have made to the JSCEM over the years, Timithy (see the aph website). They share your some of your concerns, and you might learn something about what is possible and what is simply impractical or unconstitutional.

Grace,

I am not saying that political parties should be abolished, but they can stay in the House of Reps only, and the Senate becomes like an impartial jury, that keeps a watchful eye on the House of Reps.

I wonder just how many Liberal Senators will oppose, (or even bother to properly review), the legislation that the House of Rep Liberals will put forward come July. The whole system is an archaic, and now heavily rorted farce, and the voters are just treated as sheep.

BTW. You still have not made known “your” suggestions for improvement to our democracy. Typical?

Natash Stott Destroyer and the Democraps.

I find it very interesting that, apart from one gratuitously homophobic post, nobody has mentioned the Greens in this thread. Could this be because the Greens already offer the only coherent and sustainable alternative to the Right, Far Right and Loony Right politics on offer from the ALP, Coalition and Family First respectively?

All their policies, media releases, constitution etc are available for anybody to peruse at http://www.greens.org.au .

This obvious alternative seems to have thus far escaped the astute analysis of most of the contributors to this thread (and indeed in the wider forums provided by OLO). I guess that these forums don't attract many of the rapidly increasing ranks of Green voters.

Now why would that be, I wonder?

Morgan

Morgan
the Greens are more loony than the looniest of loonies. Led by a Homosexual, that alone says heaps about the party and its clearly gay agenda.
We have looked at green policies and feel that they are weak on many fronts. Seriously flawed, biased toward sexual agenda and fringe environmental issues.
The better solution to the problem of 'right and left' in the major parties is cearly Family First, as will be demonstrated at the next election, either state of federal. U never know, FF might come up with some innovative green policies of its own

I guess that's another gratuitously homophobic post, eh? Sigh...

I think that the evident homophobia in some of the posts here says far more about their writers, than the sexuality of their leader says about the Greens. Wasn't this supposed to be a forum for the exchange of critical thought?

Morgan

Boaz, are you sure there are no homosexuals in the Family First party?

Hi Grace..
actually, I don't know enough about the particular members to comment definitively on that. I would assume though, that given their basic principles of operation and social values, it would be doubtful that a homosexual would feel comfortable among them.
Hope your weekend is going well.

Yup... just like the churches, I'd reckon. Like, there'd be no AOG homosexuals, would there? Out of the closet ones, I mean...

Morgan :)

Morgan
homosexual behavior is just one of a number of 'sins' to which I'm sure people in 'the church' as u would say it, are prone, as is anyone. I note a Vermont south secondary teacher has just been jailed for a rather adventurous threesome with 2 teenage girls he taught.. well humanity is frail, we are always torn between the 'flesh' and the 'spirit' or as a secular person might say 'The conscience'.
When such things are found in a member of any Church it is truly a sad day. They lose so much more than a typical secular person loses. Its called 'Their testimony' (much more than mere reputation) and I assure you, that to lose that is a dark moment in ones life. One would have to be extremely naive to suggest church members are above such things. To be Christian is to walk with God, but our lower nature sometimes lures us into 'greener' pathways, which always turn out to be empty. Not all those who name the name of Christ as Savior, live under His continual Lordship, we are human. Sinners, redeemed by Grace, not perfect now (and never will be), but pressing on towards it as we give over more of our lives and hearts to His rule.

Wow! Divinity in our midst! Grace, can you please redeem my sins once you're done with David?

Hallelujah! Praise the lord and pass the salt!

Morganzola - Hail to the voters of WA, for they are full of grace, and have repelled the evil forces of homophobia!

Boaz - it was a great weekend, hope you addagoodone2

Grace.. u will love this one :)

Isaiah did not win popularity contests in his day, nor would he win any now, but his message is still just as sharp.

Isaiah 5.20
20 Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness,

who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.

21 Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes and clever in their own sight.

22 Woe to those who are heroes at drinking wine and champions at mixing drinks,

23 who acquit the guilty for a bribe, but deny justice to the innocent.

24 Therefore, as tongues of fire lick up straw and as dry grass sinks down in the flames,

so their roots will decay and their flowers blow away like dust;

for they have rejected the law of the LORD Almighty."


I worked pretty much most of the weekend, except for practicing for a fun run next saturday.

But back to the TOPIC....

What we need to 'keep the bastards honest' is an ISAIAH party.... one with the same prinicples. Perhaps we should call it the 'prophetic' party ? hmmmmm... One of the classics is Amos, he points out all the sins of the nations surrounding Israel, one by one, in a clockwise direction, and u can see the heads of the Leaders of the Israelites all knodding in agreement, and perhaps a few 'Yes.. preach ..go for it !!" from the crowd...then finally, he focuses and homes in on THEM.

The prophets spoke with divine authority, because they called the nation back to righteousness, even (or especially) the kings. Hence we have one king

7 But Jehoshaphat asked, "Is there not a prophet of the LORD here whom we can inquire of?"

8 The king of Israel answered Jehoshaphat, "There is still one man through whom we can inquire of the LORD , but I hate him because he never prophesies anything good about me, but always bad. He is Micaiah son of Imlah.

If ever we needed unpleasant news, from a prophet..it is now. We need that call, that rebuke, that pronouncement "This is the way, walk in it"

Jumping Jehoshaphat! Thanks, David - I always wanted to write that but I didn't know how to spell it :)

Don't you think you're laying on the woe and recrimination a bit thick? Do you do self-flagellation as well?

Morgan

Thanks Grace - the WA result is certainly better than I'd feared. Mind you, I'm not overly enamoured with the ALP, but they're certainly better than the WA Libs.

With respect to homophobia - I actually think that the homosexuality or otherwise of politicians is a complete furphy. It only matters to the homophobes, but I find it hard to resist exposing fundamentalist hypocrisy when I come across it...

Cheers,
Morgan :)

Thanks for the laugh Boaz, I especially enjoyed "Woe to those who are heroes at drinking wine and champions at mixing drinks". I was not aware they were doing cocktails back then!

Good luck at the fun run, and remember, as I have said before, its the journey that counts....

Morganzola - I agree with you and many Australians re the ALP, they really need to lift their game federally, but then that goes for all the opposition parties, including the impoverished Democrats. Democracy demands an effective opposition.

As for homophobia, the root of the word says it all, its about fear. In the long run, this fear will give way to reason and civility. It just takes a bit longer for some

Your welcome Grace... and hey ! u learn something new each day right ?
I guess there were some people in Isaiah's day who had a giggle about the 'whacky Torah basher' :) but after the Babylonians came and sacked the city, stole all the Temple treasures and exiled all the nobility to a foreign land, I guess the smirks were not present anymore as they all waved good bye to all that had been precious to them. But,no, I'm not suggesting we will have a similar experience, in our case it is more likely that cultural and social implosion occurs before the 'evil indonesians' come and take you away :)

Morgan, you should read up on the story of Noah and note these words carefully "As it was, in the days of Noah...." u might even do a search on that phrase and see what comes up.

The Democrats sank because of inherrant weakness in their position, lacking a moral foundation apart from the one they made up as they went.