The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Could a Labor government escape the Liberals' legacy > Comments

Could a Labor government escape the Liberals' legacy : Comments

By Miriam Lyons, published 12/11/2007

A future Labor government will need to escape the memory of past defeats and seize this opportunity to reimagine the future.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All
“…we need to build the integrity of the democratic process more urgently than we need to reform any particular policy.”

Why do you say this Miriam? It suggests that you don’t see any particularly strong need to change any policy and that our democratic system is just fine and needs to be protected.

I’d suggest that there is the most urgent need for major policy shifts and that our brand of democracy is one of the problems that has got us into a position where our future wellbeing is under grave threat and enormous change in governance is needed.

What we need is a government that can show strong leadership and guide us in the new direction that I mentioned in my last post, and do it in such a way as to gain the support of the people.

As you say, this campaign is;

“Dull, unimaginative, and so very distant from the real debates we need to be having about Australia's future”

So isn’t this a sad indictment of our political process – that droll issues take precedence over big-picture issues?

I wonder if you could give us an idea of the sorts of policy development you are involved with. Is it big-picture sustainability-oriented stuff, or deck-chair rearranging stuff?
Posted by Ludwig, Monday, 12 November 2007 8:23:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Ludwig: “…we need to build the integrity of the democratic process more urgently than we need to reform any particular policy.”
Why do you say this Miriam? It suggests that you don’t see any particularly strong need to change any policy..."

I can't speak for Miriam, but I see it such that for Labor to get into a position of being able to 'do anything', like address policy changes, they have to play the game.

That is - They have to win the election first.

That is the democratic process - winning over a democratic majority.

The fatal flaw of any democracy is that the majority can be idiots and aresholes. It is not a perfect system of governance, but its the only one we got. And the votes of all those idiots must also count for it to be democratic.

Back to those ever so powerful marginal seat swinging voters, in a minority, yes, but holding the whole country by the short & curlies. They sell their votes to the highest bidder - they are a petulant spoiled brat minority with "whats in it for me?" attitudes, full stop, end of story. They dont care about policy, and they wont vote for it. So they have to be *bought* in the democratic way.

And that also means, for it to be genuinely democratic Rudd needs to to 'keep faith' by honoring the bribes, at least for the first term.

And which also means, I have to be double-taxed to subsidise their kids private school fees.

But I would have to do that under Liberals anyway *sigh*
Posted by Rain, Monday, 12 November 2007 10:23:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Ludwig, I do see a strong need to change all kinds of policies, and I don't think our democracy is in a particularly healthy state.

But as I wrote at the end of the article, I think a lot of the most important problems we have to deal with (climate change for example, or entrenched social exclusion) are what's known as 'wicked problems' (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_problems for a definition). For such problems there may be no perfect technocratic solution - you need to find common ground between multiple conflicting stakeholders, and some groups may need to accept changes that aren't in their own immediate best interests. The only way we can reach this acceptance is if everyone believes that the process is fair, and that their concerns have been taken into account. That requires a reinvigoration of the democratic process - including a genuine rebuilding of trust between citizens and policy makers. Breaking promises isn't a good way to start building trust. So, apart from the obvious ethical reasons, I think that's a good argument for an incoming government to keep its promises - even the bad ones.
Posted by Miriam Lyons, Monday, 12 November 2007 11:30:09 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Miriam

Pleased you cleared that up. I agree the focus of both parties far too inhibited and lacking immagination. But then again why would we expect either to be immaginative ... since they both operate on a 'let's scare them' basis. I look forward to your article.
Posted by keith, Wednesday, 14 November 2007 9:39:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Miriam

The first really wicked problem for a government is how to be elected and then be able to make the necessary changes without going back on any promises, commitments or stated policy directions that it thought were necessary to make in order to get elected!. Or at least not back on too many commitments as to cause a significant loss of support. Sounds like an impossibility to me, at least in this election.

Yes a genuine rebuilding of trust between citizens and policy-makers would be great. But that trust hasn’t been there for a long time (has it ever really been there?) and our system continues to function reasonably well. So I wonder how important it really is.

In fact, I wonder if a significantly higher level of trust than we have now is even possible, as there will always be mistrust and antipathy between normal people and politicians, as there is between the average person and bureaucrats, law enforcers, banks and other sections of private enterprise, etc, etc.

I think it is more important for a government to show strong leadership in the right direction while striving to convince the populace that it is necessary and that if some commitments and policy directions stated in the campaign have to be compromised, well so be it.
Posted by Ludwig, Wednesday, 14 November 2007 11:34:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy