Nice article - articulates one of my main objections to the labor party.

Now that they're getting a little more centrist and there is the appearance, at least, of reducing their reliance upon unions, the labor party is heading in the right direction - but until they are more accepting of opposing views, they're wilfully obstructing democratic process.

My views align more closely with the labor party than that of the coalition, yet until they resolve this issue I can't in good conscience support them, which pains me quite a great deal.

Floor crossing affected the result of floor crossing divisions in only 53 (12%) of cases. The vast majority of these occurred in the Senate 48 (91%) compared to five (9%) in the House of Representatives. The successful floor crossing divisions in the House of Representatives all occurred between 1952 and 1955. The last successful division in the Senate involved Nationals senators crossing the floor to vote with the Labor Government on the Representation Bill 1983. This bill sought to increase the number of MPs in Parliament

The study considered the effect of crossing the floor on the final outcome of bills, amendments to bills, regulations and substantive motions. The study does not include the final effect on procedural matters. These findings show that the practical effect of crossing the floor is much less important than the symbolic impact.

To quote Liberal Senator Michael Ronaldson.

"[I] have always been a passionate believer in the sanctity of the party room … I am just so passionately and vehemently opposed to the option of crossing the floor. I actually think it’s gutless … you [are] there as part of a team"

or Senator David Hamer

"none of the cross voters was penalised by loss of selection as the Liberal candidate in the next election. … in some cases their position was strengthened, for they were representing the views of the party organisations in their states, which were opposed to what the federal government was proposing."

http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rn/2005-06/06rn11.htm

The punters tend to vote for the Party and rarely for the person. They also regularly punish parties which display any tendency to ill discipline, remember the Latham farce in Tasmania ?

Is NZ an example of what relaxed disciplne might bring, as in the loopy right of ACT splitting from NZ Labour ? Or maybe the US Congress which is mired in money politics, pork barrelling and shameless corruption.

"Unity is strength" is not an empty phrase. Spare the Whip and ruin the child!

Good item Natasha.

This "loyalty" is the basis on which we can dismiss Australia as operating under democracy. The Constitution is clear that all votes should not be conscience votes, rather they should be in representation of the elected person's consituents, be that a State (Senate) or electorate (Lower House).

No loyalty as espoused by the two major parties can ever meet the slightest needs of democracy and it is time we accepted we don't have that system of government. We actually never have had it at all.

Those few people who have crossed the floor do so not for their constituents or State anyway. They do so for their own opinions. Barnaby makes a pretence of this but he does what he does as part of a Nationals "game". Call it the "Barnaby jig". A sideshow, no more.

TRTL must also accept that Howard has stated publicly that all Coalition MP's owe their first loyalty to the Cabinet. Exactly the same as Labor's craziness. The few who do vote against Howard's directions are rewarded with attempted removal of Party endorsement.

In this regard there is no difference between the two majors. Their demands for lyalkty to me appear to be more along the lines of betraying their country. Traitors in other words. Both majors.

No need to quibble about how many have crossed the floor. It's miniscule in numbers and irrelevant for any rational debate.

Sure Robby, in practice, Howard manages to keep his people on a tight leash - though in theory, they have more latitude. In practice it may be different, however as so few appear willing to push he envelope we have an academic situation.

On the state level, observe what happened to Molloy when she opposed labor's Dams - booted. The liberals haven't had the chance to test Howard's mettle on this kind of thing, and Howard has always backed off before pushing the envelope.
The Labor party however, has now made it clear what happens when one of their own opposes them.

We are supposed to have a democratic government/parliament but we know that John Howard dictates and other members generally follow suit. They could not care less about what is best for their constituents.

Few people seem to realise that while Howard is so against unions, when it comes to his own union (political parties are unions) then it is totally different.

I for one hold that a political party operating in one House (of Parliament) should not be allowed to operate in the other House as it would invoke a conflict of interest.
Also Ministers should not be Senators!

What we see is that members of a political party in power will go along generally what their leader dictates as to try to secure their own future and the electorate can get lost, so to say.

Perhaps, if people who voted were to vote all for INDEPENDENTS then the political parties may learn a lesson to shape up or shape out.

See also my blog http://au.360.yahoo.com/profile-ijpxwMQ4dbXm0BMADq1lv8AYHknTV_QH and my website http://www.schorel-hlavka.co