As a fairly middle of the road person who believes in the concept of a social democracy, I find myself less and less represented by our system of representative democracy. The ALP has moved too far from its working class roots and the Liberals have moved too far from representing small business and the interests of fair competition.

Both major parties have got too tied in with corporate self interest, globalism and free trade market ideology, both becoming temporary socialists when corporations need to be bailed out from the public purse. This shift in ideology has impacted on many decisions including invasion of Iraq, refugees and the environment just for starters.

The Australian Democrats offered a glimmer of light in keeping the Bs honest from the 70s until their recent and untimely demise. The Greens have gained strength because of overwhelming disillusion with the two major parties, but many see the Greens as a one-issue party.

The feel from the general public is they hate to see public assets sold off and prefer especially essential services in the hands of the people, not foreign corporations. In the past both Liberal and Labor Governments adopted a public ownership stance and it was certainly never seen as part of some left-wing conspiracy.

Why have we moved so far towards big business interests to the detriment in some cases to other important community and smaller business interests?

Have we become too consumed with consumerism and the concept of the individual? Have we lost interest in the idea of collective interests – where wellbeing is not measured only by GDP but by social indicators? Is it that large corporations have grown out of proportion to all other influences so wield more power in politics?

Where have the moderates all gone? Why have we moved so far away from the middle ground over the last 30 years?

Does anyone have any ideas? I am not after a hostile discussion about Right and Left ideology just some historical context for the change

I have put my paddle in the water of this debate many times.
My age lets me see the traditional Labor movement.
And it and I have moved on.
Once Communist, then confirmed Socialist I no longer truly follow either unlikely dream.
Yet am more than happy with current ALP direction and understand under both forms of government we are in part Socialist, and better for it.
A fruit stall set up to sell oranges in an area that only eats Apples will soon go broke.
It is not the ALP driving its self away from its once roots, voters buy and sell, not party's.
And they make the market, Labor occupies land once partly owned by conservatives.
Only made possible by that land being vacated by people like Abbott looking for more Orange eaters than the number that actually exist.
One step at a time voters/consumers of the political product, will drive party's to other grounds.
This is more likely to come via main stream party's than minority's, death of Democrats One nation, increasing isolation of greens and marginalization, a self inflicted wound of Nationals is evidence mainstream water flows best.

Dear Pelican,

I have to admit that I'm happy with the current
Government. I don't think any Government has all
the answers - but this Government has actually
achieved quite a lot in its short term in office,
and despite the many obstacles that were thrown
in its path. The PM seems to be a man that is
more concerned with getting on with the job
than playing politics.

In any case - it is our responsibility to
make our elected representatives
aware of our concerns and hope that they
will show some reaction.

The current Government's programs have been interrupted
by the workings of the former Bush Administration, and
the world economic meltdown, which has created an
unforeseen global recession requiring immediate
action. They went into the election with a set of
programs but due to the global financial catastrope
these programs have been slowed down, and changes had
to be put in place. It's unfortunate that the
Opposition's only talent seems to be condemnation.
And when given a chance to make history, they choose
instead to live in the past - preferring inaction
and complacency.

We should give this Government at least two terms in
office to implement their programs before we judge
them.

Well I see government being elected either because the oppossed government was not doing a good enough job, or the opp gov was not good enough to defeat the victor. Either way, many governments today win simply because they were not as bad as the alternative.

Remember, one major shortfall in our system is that to win an election, one does not have to be particularly good, they simply have to be better than the other side.

It's a bit like the old 'bear in the woods joke'.

Two hikers come accross a huge bear and one stops to put his runners on.

The other one says, "you don't think you can out run him do you", he replies no, I only have to be able to out run you.

I too am happy with the current government, even fit rechtubs view, how could anyone support the other mob.
I can not resist however highlighting this mornings, lift?.
Polls say Abbott is 5% higher at 23%.
Rudd down from 65 to 60.
hugely funny but Abbott may just get ,well will get even better.
Todays real story however is the leaking conservative bucket, it did not take long.
Hockey costed Abbott's idea at 50 billion.
I am guilty, all who replied are, we diverted this thread.
It is about how and why we select governments, is there another way.
In my view not in my lifetime.

“Why have we moved so far towards big business interests to the detriment in some cases to other important community and smaller business interests?”

Pelican, I think it is pretty straightforward. Big business is powerful. Politicians are for the most part (approximately 99.9999999%) money-grabbers who are interested above all else in setting themselves up very comfortably.

The cosy relationship between them and big business seems very understandable to me…..for people who are not highly principled, which includes the vast majority of human beings!

The paradigm is then entrenched, so that those who would be more principled are either strongly coerced to follow suit or can’t make any real differences to the paradigm and just end up losing out personally if they go against it.

The unfortunate part is that despite this glaringly obvious huge problem with government, and with the future wellbeing of our society, there just hasn’t been anywhere near enough outrage expressed by the general community, directed towards making government more independent.

But then, this paradigm has developed a set of safety measures that greatly assist in keeping the cosy relationship in place.

We’ve got the two big parties behaving in exactly the same way, so the opposition doesn’t oppose the political direction that has come out of this business-politician relationship, most significantly the pursual of enormously high and never-ending population growth and the increasing markets, economic turnover and jobs that it brings, regardless of the fact that it is just more of the same quality of existence for evermore people without increasing the average quality of life for existing residents at all and is being pushed upon us despite obvious and critical downsides such as stressed water supplies, congestion, overloaded infrastructure and services of all sorts and major environmental degradation. Uhhhh huuh (deep breath!)

continued

Most voters are reluctant to vote for minor parties as they are perceived to be single-issue or narrowly focussed.

We have the disgusting compulsory preferential voting system, which means that if people do vote for minor parties or independents, their vote will the vast majority of the time, trickle down and count for one of the two major parties, even if they are specifically voting against them!

Then we’ve got the media, which for the most part supports what big business wants and which has constantly espoused the virtues of continuous-growth economics in the most terribly unbalanced manner to the point where the general community has been basically brainwashed.

And so we have this entrenched system still in place, after the Howard years. At a point in time when we desperately needed to get out of it and steer towards a paradigm of sustainability, what did we get? – Rudd!!... with his huge increase in immigration and a regime of expansionism at a record level well above the previous record level under Howard!!....and to which he didn’t even allude in the election campaign!

….

“I have to admit that I'm happy with the current Government.”

OOOOOOOooooohhhh Foxy Foxy Foxy Foxy Foxy!! !! !! !! !!

And Belly Belly Belly….

How could you be?? ?? ?? ?

Well it doesn't really matter if people are happy with the current government there is still no real left wing choices. Even the greens are represented by middle class who seek an designer brand image over real political diversity.

Why do people with traditional left wing views find support in what is called far right parties? Switzerland for example and the minaret vote. Surely not being forced to tolerate outward symbols of religion is a very left wing concept. So why is the far right stealing these voters? Howard siezed on this lack of representation with the 'Howard Battlers" and also the remarkable change that now suggests being anti-immigration is far right. Nothing makes sense.

But yet it does.

It is about globalisation. The big business want immigrants in and big business want to send work offshore. makes sense? Big business want to force immigration, whether compatible or not. This allows for business to break down borders so they can capitalise on the opportunities in other nations be it for cheap labour or a huge new markets for their products. Borders and culture are a barrier for big business. They want them demolished.

Skills shortage. Interesting. Many dispute this. On so many levels. Too many people with the skills and experience not getting work but seeing thier role listed as being in short supply. the value of an employee is increasingly being globalised. Some will get richer due to international wage comparisons and some will get poorer. It is not local anymore. So locals are being seen as too expensive.

We are too far entwined in the process now to be able to retreat. I do not see any room for workers rights on any great scale until equilibrium has been reached globally. Only then will workers have a voice again. To fight against global corporation there needs to be a united global workforce.

We are being run by business not government. There is no left wing in business. We have been sold out.

I would like to see a representative democracy. We don't have it since our parliamentarians generally do not take into account the views of the people in the electoral district they supposedly represent. The decision of the party room generally determines their vote on legislation. This generally overrides the wishes of their constituents, the good of Australia and their conscience. My representative to the Commonwealth Parliament is Peter Dutton. He points to the financial support he has been able to pry for the government for various activities in the district. However, he doesn't mention any cases where he has actually represented us. I don't think there are any. In that I don't imagine that he is different from other parliamentarians.

IMHO the only votes a parliamentarian should be committed to are those which support the platform he ran on.

Not that I have any great hopes, but I recently joined the Greens.

Right there with you, david f

>>IMHO the only votes a parliamentarian should be committed to are those which support the platform he ran on.<<

The really stupefyingly amazing thing about this suggestion is that it could so easily work.

We elect a politician against a publicly proclaimed platform

If there is legislation proposed for which he/she does not have an explicit mandate as expressed in the platform, they are ineligible to vote upon it.

If there is legislation proposed for which they do have a mandate from their electorate, then they must vote in accordance with that mandate.

If the legislation is important enough, and doesn't appear in the mandates of any party or individual politician, then an election or a referendum should necessarily be called.

That would ensure that the manifestos are properly drawn up, since they become legally binding, in the same way that financial service providers are required to supply a product disclosure statement.

It is so simple, that it could be implemented by the next election.

Unfortunately, it requires that our representatives in parliament take responsibility for their pre-election promises.

Which is why it will never happen.

Good opening post, Pelican.

>>Where have the moderates all gone? Why have we moved so far away from the middle ground over the last 30 years?<<

They're all still there, but they're being swamped by a combination of diversity and competition. When I was a kid at family Christmas parties, my (very loud) uncle was always saying that to get anywhere in life you need to be the very best at whatever you do. I know what he meant now that I'm older.

I think this is at the root of the problem: unless you're a razzle-dazzle celebrity these days, a good talker or very good at your profession, you're a nobody. This one-sidedness is starting to affect many ordinary people in society who feel powerless and left off the back of the pack. So, to fit in without being humiliated by those that are better, they've learned to fit in with the rest of the herd without making waves.

Pelican
I think everyone is frustrated by their views not being represented as much as they would like by our 'representative' democracy.

"Does anyone have any ideas? I am not after a hostile discussion about Right and Left ideology just some historical context for the change."

Me too.

Three ideas.

1.
To what extent is the problem that the government is not representative of the population, rather than representative of you? That's why I suggested the online democracy thing. Not that I believe in it. I don't. But to promote the thought experiment, on what would happen if the laws were in fact representative of the people. As you can see from that thread, most people don't want it.

2.
Democracy, by its nature, will tend to morph into a middle ground in which the parties are increasingly indistinguishable and unprincipled. This is because politicians will first offer what everyone wants, such as protection from murder and invasion. Then when both parties are offering that, politicians will next offer what a majority want. When both parties are offering what the majority clearly want, politicians will next try to put together a majority by assembling a rag-bag of sectional interests: 4% of the vote for a handout to this industry here, 5% for a law illegalising something a vocal minority doesn't like, another few percent for a handout to this industry or group. And so on to a bare majority.

Utterly unprincipled, and that's how we are governed: three layers of it.

The recent law against not walking your dog is a classic example. Who can believe that, if the people were free to choose, fifty percent would voluntarily support this law? Thus the thought experiment shows that most laws and political activity are not in fact representative of the people at all.

3.
But even if they were, what makes you think it would be better if fifty percent or more of the population got to decide what values you should live by, rather than you?

Foxy and Belly
I am not totally unhappy with some of the current Government’s actions but I am thinking in terms of broader approaches ideologically and economically. How our modern governments have moved away from any real semblance of representative democracy.

Pericles
Your idea of holding politicians’ to pre-election promises would be the ideal – at least we know what we are getting up front. But of course, you are quite right we cannot depend on promises in the current mainstream world of politics.

The Missus and david f
You have hit the nail on the head in terms of what I was seeking in terms of discussion or thoughts. Our choice within the political spectrum has narrowed somewhat to what is commonly perceived as the tweedle-dum and tweedle-dee syndrome.

RobP
I would add that avoidance of humiliation is from people who THINK they are better. Those who are most corrupted, or at best career public servants, looking only to the next promotion or empire building exercise, there is little thought given to the needs of the public or indeed sometimes to serving the Minister of the day, who are often blissfully unaware of what goes on within bureaucracies. Or indeed how money is actually spent.

Ludwig
The business sector has always held some power, but what has caused such a noticeable shift in terms of an increasing influence in the political sphere? I agree our preferential system of voting means a vote for a minor party is wasted except in the Senate. At least in that there is some scrutiny of what the government might do, only if the majority is not held by the presiding government.

There have been some disastrous effects of government pandering to big corporate such as the outsourcing of services in post-war Iraq – fraud, corruption by private contractors and profiteers including many questions now being asked about how and why these contracts were awarded.

Rehctub
I agree. Governments tend to get voted out rather than any conscious choice for a better alternative. It says a lot about our current system.

Peter Hume, that is distinctly ungenerous.

>>That's why I suggested the online democracy thing... to promote the thought experiment, on what would happen if the laws were in fact representative of the people. As you can see from that thread, most people don't want it.<<

That's what is known as the John Howard argument, used to great effect in the republic referendum.

The idea is that you put forward a solution that patently will not work, and then interpret the feedback as rejecting the argument as a whole.

JH said "see, Australians don't want a republic". You say "see, Australians don't want direct democracy"

Specious arguments.

Of course the majority wants a republic. Of course the majority wants clearer and more direct representation of their views. But until they can see a model that actually works, they ain't going to buy into a dud.

>>The recent law against not walking your dog is a classic example. Who can believe that, if the people were free to choose, fifty percent would voluntarily support this law?<<

Proposed law, Peter Hume.

Proposed. By the RSPCA, to remind owners that failing to exercise the animals you keep in slavery is a specific and additional cruelty.

I'd vote for it. In a New York minute.

>>what makes you think it would be better if fifty percent or more of the population got to decide what values you should live by, rather than you?<<

Wouldn't it give you some kind of clue that the community around you is trying to tell you something, if more than half of them are prepared to put their hands up, to support a law that more accurately reflected that community's values?

Wouldn't you stop for a moment and think hey, it might be me who is out of step here?

I know people would reject the dog-walking law 999-1. But then I already know that I see the keeping of pets in an entirely different light to my fellow-Australians. But so long as I am still permitted to disagree with them, and to articulate that disagreement, I have no complaint.

Pericles
You are missing the point, which is, that the current ‘representative’ democracy provides no way of knowing whether a particular law is *in fact* representative of the will of the majority of the people or not.

But even if it was, so what? The majority are as capable of error, greed and violence as any minority. What makes you think their opinion, even if it were accurately represented, is going to be any good? If a majority favour persecuting homosexuals, or drowning witches, or boat people, does that make it okay?

Thus it is not to the point to complain that our system of government is not representative enough, because even if it was, its supporters have not given any reason why any particular decision should be made by majoritarian compulsion and confiscation, rather than individual freedom and consent.

Perhaps a few more of your circular arguments about 'the community' will convince you? They usually do.

Pelican
Big government and big business go hand in hand. This is because the on-costs of government regulation on business are much harder for small and medium businesses to bear, because of economies of scale, so every new regulation and tax has the effect of selecting against small businesses and in favour of big. Thus government regulation actively sends small businesses broke, and their employees onto the dole queues. And then the interventionists call for more government regulation to fix the problem.

Campaigns cost more and more money than they used to. That money has to come from somewhere. So, paying pipers and tunes and all that. The politicians being the pipers of course.

Ban political advertising and government advertisements (even for 'explaining policy' wink wink).

It's a sad state of affairs when the government is the top advertising spender in the country.

I'd be happy to see some actual 'ideology' from any of the current political representatives. I haven't seen any evidence of any ideology.

Foxy,

'The PM seems to be a man that is
more concerned with getting on with the job
than playing politics.'

It's so sweet how naive you are. His latest antics are straight from the handbook of that master of wedge, Rodent Johnny.

Pericles,

'Of course the majority wants a republic. Of course the majority wants clearer and more direct representation of their views. But until they can see a model that actually works, they ain't going to buy into a dud.'

Could apply that to the ETS an'all!

pelican,

Middle of the road! Haha, you're a bleeding heart, basket-weaving, latte-sipping, Chardonnay-guzzling, elitist member of the loony left chattering classes I reckon. Middle of the road? Just another word for fence-sitter isn't it?

People who sit in the middle of the road deserve to be run over. Then again, everything's relative. Aye runner.

Houllyn Doully tell us what you think.
No do not bother it is not worth reading.
Ludwig, you missed the point, not for the first time MOST Australians,60% agree with foxy and me.
Not the world, lets start with us, if you ruled today.
Would you forget it is business that puts the pay checks in our pockets?
Can you govern without them? without jobs?
Tell me one government any one, that can be all things to all its voters.
Weird that we have one so very much in the mold most want and unlikely these poll number will be seen too often, all In all well done my mob.

Peter
I was talking about me - I guess in terms of feeling unrepresented - hence starting the topic thinking that others might feel the same.

Peter you said: "But even if they were, what makes you think it would be better if fifty percent or more of the population got to decide what values you should live by, rather than you?"

I don't expect people to live by my values as long as what they do does not impede apon the rights of others.

You have an extreme view as far as regulation goes, seeing it only in terms of its worse manifestations ie. Communism, big brother.

I don't have your faith in market principles to ensure justice in the workplace but I also would hate to see regulation stifle innovation and creativity. Too much red tape can add to the pitfalls of running a business but this is different than some regulation to protect those who, for the most part, are not in a position to influence decisions that are vital for their well being. Work Choices was a great example of what happens when too much power is given to the employer. The 70s an example when too much power is handed over to the unions.

Houlley
Middle of the road is not fence sitting given that, to your own admission, is where you firmly sit having moved in from the Left. Watch out for those RVs. It is basically acknowledging Capitalism works better than Socialism but needs to be protected from itself for all our sake from its most extreme version. Hence 'some' regulation is required.

PS: I don't drink lattes nor do I dring alcohol. You can't have it both ways either I am a latte/chardy drinker or a basket weaver - you are not allowed to be both according to stereotype. You forgot sandal wearing mung bean eater.

PSS: I always wonder why the middle classes who believe in social democratic principles are derided should they partake of the odd latte or chardonay. This is discrimination. I think we need a Human Rights Bill.

Another idea - not sure if it would work but here goes:

Get rid of the Party system.

Vote for candidates in your electorate with a clear platform and ideals.

Government is formed from all candidates elected - why should your MP not have as much of a say just because they are in Opposition.

A leader, Ministry and other positions voted in by secret ballot by the elected MPs. Get rid of State Governments - why do we need so many tiers of government?

Health, education, child protection, law enforcement are all universal and relevant to each state and can be centralised. Local Councils would take up more uniquely local issues and current responsibilities.

It sounds a bit like governing by committee but it may be more representative than what we have now.

Obviously there are some problems with this such as what role would the Senate play and would there be enough scrutiny and review in the process of passing legislation?

What mechanisms would keep the Government honest or to account without an opposition as such?

Maybe I am barking up the wrong tree, but any ideas on what might work better than the system we have now, or is what we have got the best of what will always be an imperfect system given the wide range of people and opposing ideas

Peter Hume,
Sorry peter you misrepresented what I was saying in your post.
Sadly your current assertions are inductive rather than deductive, in that you have jumped to conclusions based on incomplete information. The larger the sample the greater confidence in the mean.
The smaller the sample the greater the probability for skewing away from the real mean. This was my point about 50+1% of a sample = 25% of the whole (The US example)for optional voting.

I agree with Pelican representatives represent their interests first, then the parties, maintaining power and their constituents' interests a poor 4th.

Peter, it could be argued, and I would, that the primary root causes to the unrepresentative issue is threefold.

- Firstly, *the party system and the priorities and compromises that engenders*. Get elected, the party's interests, gaining of and maintenance of power then the interests of the people.
- *The cost and nature of elections* All add to the indebtedness to specific *non voting* interest groups that may or may no be in the electorate's interests.
- The perverting power of *non voting* noisy or cashed up interest groups.

The interrelationship between the three as perverting factors is as obvious as it is complex.

IMHO I think the facts are clear it is now about if, what, when and how we address those issues.

Detailed ideas have peppered my posts ad infanitum.

Pelican asks:


"Where have the moderates all gone?
Why have we moved so far away from the
middle ground over the last 30 years?"


Yet, paradoxically, it is claimed the formula for political success in Australia, the ability to obtain an endorsement from the electorate to govern, depends upon the party of government or would-be government being perceived to appeal to the middle ground of the electorate in order to obtain the necessary majority of votes.

This formula is tacitly recognised in the claims, or observations, that there is increasingly little to distinguish the major parties from a policy standpoint.

Is it correct that despite the seeming dependence upon, and endorsement by, a middle ground majority of the electorate, the parties of government are consistently failing to adopt policies wanted by that middle ground majority of voters? Pelican's observation with respect to what have historically been public utilities, for instance, would seem to be a correct statement of majority community view. Are the expectations of the middle ground majority out of touch with what is realistically achievable by government?


Could it be that another factor may be at work to produce this discrepancy between public expectation and government performance?

It seems the significance of a little realized fact has gone almost completely unnoticed by the public at large, and by the commentariat in particular. The results of the last Federal elections, as shown on the Virtual Tally Room web pages at the end of counting in 2007, have been taken down and replaced by reworked pages. What might be the implications of that?

Could it have been that over the last thirty or so years there has been an influence other than that of the middle ground majority of the electorate at work in the ballot box, and that this influence has been tacitly or unconsciously responded to by the majority of representatives across the political spectrum to give policies unwanted by the majority of the electorate?

With the recent server problems on OLO, perhaps viewers did not notice the report of that take-down of election results.

It seems to me Forrest, that a fragmented and piecemeal system is to blame. The elections can only be won by a majority, so the parties say whatever they think will get them the most votes. When they get into power, they find that things are a lot different to the way they looked from the Opposition benches. For example, they realise that the ship of state has a lot of moving parts that need to be maintained for the system to carry on the way it has. The pollies then perhaps subconsciously change their approach partly because it's easier and partly to maintain what we already have.

Added to that, the ambitious in-the-moment politicians innately realise that they will only get credit for doing things that their peers think is important or cutting-edge and they then tailor their efforts to doing what is best for their careers. By the time such factors work their way through the system, you have a disconnect between what people voted for, or what they thought they were voting for, and what the pollies actually do.

I'd liken this funneling effect of the political process to a building that's on fire. Just because all the smoke is coming out of the one open window does not mean the fire is in the room the window's in.

Forrest
Yes, many people must vote on what party is throwing around the most money rather than what might be best for the country. Although there is very little said about ideology anymore and what a party stands for. Perhaps as Peter H said it is inevitable with development and affluence.

People do talk aobut potential governments needing to appeal to middle Australia. However, there are no clear platforms and a growing cynicism for politics ensures the strategy of vote buying and pork barrelling works. What does an electorate do if there is little choice?

We have come to expect much more from government over the years so much so that there are many hands wanting a piece of the pie. Unfortunately this means there is less money for what most taxpayers would consider essential services - a good quality health system, education, roads/transport/rail, law enforcement and so forth.

When there was talk of selling the Snowy Hydro the electorate made loud noises close to the NSW State election and the decision was shelved. At least in this case, for now, that promise was kept.

By all accounts, the public, do not want publicly owned utilities sold off yet sold off they are.

Forrest I am not sure what you mean by the election tally results - aren't these results a matter of public record?

Pelican I'm afraid your brilliant post will fall on deaf ears- you will even see jaw-dropping posts like "it's fine because Labor are better than the other Party (singular)"- most Australians are so drawn into two-party politics and media focus that the concept of actually looking at ALL your local candidates (eg more than two) is completely unthinkable.
Hell, the Greens is an obvious example- they're NOT a 'single issue party' as you pointed they would appear to be in public- they have dozens of basic policies and hundreds of pages of more details on their website- just like the Democrats, One Nation, and most independents- yet too many are too lazy to even spend a few minutes to actually type their name into google and CHECK- and are happy to take someone else's word for it.

And you will see that basic stereotypes still dominate the voting scene- eg that our parties are "center" or "center left" and "moderate"- yet nobody seems to acknowledge that both are overwhelmingly staffed with self-absorbed career pollies who clearly don't care about any issues they even bring up outside capitalizing on it- but are both happy to stomp on our rights to pander to religious minorities, sell public assets and bail out polluting industries before even DREAMING about actually doing anything about our pollution levels.

It's a mountain we'd have to climb over before anything changes.

It could be media driven. News is owned by fewer and fewer corporations so perhaps the media convergence led to political convergence. Diversity in just about everything has disappeared due to monopolies and culture.

Aside from the media being gatekeepers of democracy (or supposedly so) I read a good article once that charged older members of a community as gatekeepers of democracy to ensure it's continuity.

We have seen gradualism, nothing evers happens that is in your face, just a slow creep away from liberalism, egalitarism etc. Younger members of society would not know it is missing.

However given the movement of skilled labour to the west and unskilled work to the emerging economies, as an older person I know the past is the past and embracing the old fair go is easier said than done.

Pelican, you wrote:

<< I am not totally unhappy with some of the current Government’s actions but I am thinking in terms of broader approaches ideologically and economically >>

I'm not totally unhappy with some aspects either, but I am completely and utterly unhappy and outraged about the really big and important ones!

When you look at the bigger picture, you’ve got to be nothing short of condemnatory of Krudd!

The biggest factor by far is the immigration rate. Then there are interconnected factors of the absurdity of a ‘big Australia’ and the maintenance of continuous growth economics and the hypocrisy of saying that he wants to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while upholding these policy positions.

Then there is the disingenuity of the ETS, which in anything like its present form would effectively be no more than a means of upholding business as usual while pretending to do something meaningful about climate change!

I mean, Rudd’s politics really is utterly crackers!!

So, would representative democracy help straighten out this mess?

No. I can’t see that it would. Afterall, Rudd is still well and truly in favour with the general populace! /:>(

----
<< … MOST Australians,60% agree with foxy and me >>

Yes Belly. And what an almighty shame that is. But I reckon that following will steadily whittle away.

Parliamentarians who are supposed to be representative of a district should have a feeling for that district and a history of connection with that district. However, that is not always the case. Our representative in Dickson, Peter Dutton, tried to run from another electoral district because boundary changes now include a greater proportion of Labor voters. Announcing his desire to continue to 'serve the public' (translation: suck on the government tit) he tried to get preselection in another district which was considered a Lib 'safe' seat. To their credit the district rejected him. He was a carpet bagger. (US slang for those northern politicians who came down south after the Civil War with their belongings in a carpetbag to 'serve' the district.) Our state representative is a Labor carpetbagger. Carolyn Male's district's boundaries were changed so she now 'represents' us. She was a pot calling a kettle black as she chided Peter Dutton for abandoning his district.

In an ideal situation the office would seek the office holder. People in the district would approach a person or persons they think would be best suited to serve. That's the way it is among the Navaho Indians. They elect tribal representatives, but a person who shows a desire for or campaigns for office is rejected.

In Norway political advertising is not allowed. Candidates must debate the other candidates face to face, and TV time is allotted for that purpose.

pelican,

'This is discrimination. I think we need a Human Rights Bill.'

Haha. I'm sure we do!

Of course I am middle of the road. But everyone thinks they are middle of the road. Like everyone's middle class. And everyone has a good sense of humour. I did this political compass test once and I was close to where Ghandi was. Not sure what I think about that.

I do like extremes though. Nihilism is very appealing to me. As is Col of course. But at my core, I think I am a materialist. I worship at the church of Bunnings on a Sunday morning.

'Vote for candidates in your electorate with a clear platform and ideals.
'
I have this Idea for a Pay TV show. It works like this. People text in suggestions of what they want to happen, and people can vote for different ideas. Each text costs 2 dollars or something, and the pool of money is put towards the goal. 'I'd like to see that!' was my name for the channel.

Now I was applying it to things like paying Allison Langdon to flash her tits, but you could apply it to less serious matters like running the country.

King Hazza,

'overwhelmingly staffed with self-absorbed career pollies '

This is why I found the demise of Malcolm so sad. Federal Libs and NSW Labor show that the main problem with these parties is just that. Well, that and the cost of feeding the hungry beast.

The Greens. Hahaha, oh I laugh when I hear people talk about the greens. Bob Brown is one of the funniest comedians. I mean sometimes what he says seems entirely reasonable and plausible, but then you think about it for a little while, then you just laugh and laugh.

Does anyone really, truly think the Greens could run the country? Seriously?

I have a mate who's close to the action as it were, and he's always talking about managing 'perceptions and expectations'. Doesn't matter what you do he reckons, as long as you manage the public's perceptions and expectations.

Interesting climb-down, Peter Hume

>>Pericles You are missing the point, which is, that the current ‘representative’ democracy provides no way of knowing whether a particular law is *in fact* representative of the will of the majority of the people or not. But even if it was, so what? The majority are as capable of error, greed and violence as any minority. What makes you think their opinion, even if it were accurately represented, is going to be any good? If a majority favour persecuting homosexuals, or drowning witches, or boat people, does that make it okay?<<

Yet, despite all that, you still offer as a solution your madcap "instant voting" scheme on another thread.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3267#77405

Although I notice that you are now calling it a "thought experiment", which presumably means that you have now been persuaded that it is a load of hogswash that should never have seen the light of day.

What I can't quite work out from your position on this and other threads, is whether you actually believe in any form of government that isn't totally anarchic.

Since we can't tell in the present system whether a law is supported by the will of the people...

>>the current ‘representative’ democracy provides no way of knowing whether a particular law is *in fact* representative of the will of the majority of the people or not<<

...and there's no use pandering to the majority:

>>If a majority favour persecuting homosexuals, or drowning witches, or boat people, does that make it okay?<<

...that only leaves your devil-take-the-hindmost, every-man-for-himself, last-man-standing, full-speed-ahead-and-damn-the-torpedos, I'm-all-right-Jack approach as being the way the population should manage itself.

Or not manage itself, which would be a better description of your winning formula.

Wow I am in shock.

Andrews, Ruddock back on the front bench. I maybe wrong but I think I am right. So just pretend I am right for the sake of argument.

Australians are not racist, xenophobic blah blah to the extent people think or suggest. They simply want controls and the free expression we are supposed to have in regard to many political and religous issues.

However Andrews was against this basic human right principle as was Ruddock. Haneef was treated with contempt and malice and Andrews should be in jail. He is pure evil. Ruddock is not far behind.

This area of concern is never understood because politicians do not live in the migrant areas. They are not facing the problems, the cultural changes, the feelings of isolation in ones own home due to mass migration or the increased crime rates due to poorly integrated migrants. If they do not live with the problems they will never correct them nor understand them.

So the choices are put up with it or your a racist or vote for Andrews et al and really be one. Why would one choose to be one when you can't win anyway?

This worries me deeply, it really does misread the public. They do not want extremes, they want balance. Rights should never be at anothers expense.

Houellebecq
"Does anyone really, truly think the Greens could run the country? Seriously?"
I actually do- for the simple reason that virtually none of the Libs and Labor take the job remotely seriously outside feathering their nests, and all of their members clearly show they really have no idea how to run their designated portfolios (Swan doesn't know figures in a recession crisis- Brendan Nelson wasting billions of dollars on obsolete fighter jets) that I really positively can't see how the Greens could actually be worse.

As for Turnbull- he's probably the worst of the lot- considering the first thing he actually did when he joined the Liberals was leech of taxpayers to cover his wife's renting expenses, and his blatant and seemingly deliberately deceptive spin-doctoring manner in the years prior.
He's actually the reason I finally decided I would stop voting for the Liberals and look at the other parties.

As a CONSTITUTIONALIST it is my view that what the constitution requires and what political parties in government are up to often is totally contradictory. The Commonwealth is forever encroaching upon State legislative powers and there is no system in place to appropriately deal with this. We lack constitutional competent judges and get all kind of ill conceived judgments and the Courts are in overall failing miserably. Check s.101 Inter-State commission in the constitution and then ask why it is that the commonwealth disregard the constitution (our constitution) and use CoAG to circumvent s.101? Where is the legislative powers to legislate for environment? Where indeed is the legislative powers for the Commonwealth to declare the nationality of any child born in the Commonwealth of Australia? And on and on it goes. On 19 July 2006 I comprehensively defeated the Commonwealth in that it has no legislative powers to force anyone to register and/or to vote!
.
There is a lot wrong but the way to start dealing with it is to vote for INDEPENDENTS in the next federal election and then the political parties might just learn a lesson they must serve the people and not place themselves above the constitution. As long as we fail to teach them a lesson by voting them out we are perceived to accept their rot.
Since 7 December 2007 I have requested Kevin Rudd PM to ensure a ROYAL COMMISSION is held into the unconstitutional invasions into Afghanistan and Iraq! So many people were killed and innocent lives lost and we seem not to bother to hold those legally accountable. Who are we then to complain?

<< …what the constitution requires and what political parties in government are up to often is totally contradictory. >>

Yes. The constitution is supposed to be our base level of law, in just the same way as our code of conduct is supposed to be our rule book within the public service where I work.

Well, IT ISN’T!! In both cases, the big boys will tell you that these documents apply and then proceed to go and do their own thing regardless! There’s no accountability. There’s no effective regulatory regime to rein them in!

Gerrit, could I please seek your views on a constitutional query, on the ‘disincentives to come to Queensland’ thread.

Please see http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3279#77839 and my response to it.

Thankyou

Pelican, in her post of Tuesday, 8 December 2009, at 10:33:49 AM, says:


"Forrest I am not sure what you mean
by the election tally results - aren't
these results a matter of public record?"



Official Federal election results are comprised of the collective declarations of the Divisional Returning Officers in respect to election of members to the House of Representatives, and of the Australian Electoral Officers for the various States, in respect of election of Senators. These declarations are supported by official records of the completed count of votes in all Divisions when the election is finalized. The finalized election statistics have, of course, always been a matter of public record, typically able to have been seen in summarised form in the Australian Year Books over the years, and in full detail in published Australian Electoral Commission records.

The Virtual Tally Room (VTR) is an AEC online record of the PROGRESS of the counting of votes at an election.

The VTR opens at the close of polling on election day. To start with, the only information it contains is details as to the candidates, and the number of electors enrolled for any given Division as at the close of the roll. As the count in polling places finalizes, progressive results of counting are posted to the VTR. Each page display constitutes a public record, and as such should be treated as the law in relation to archiving of public documents provides.

As VTR pages are updated with more count results, the previous page display passes from public view. Each page display bears a date and time stamp. Around three quarters of the total vote cast gets to be counted on election night, but not all of the polling place count results necessarily get posted to the VTR that night. VTR pages are updated over the next three weeks as the declaration vote is checked for admissibility, and then counted.



It is this record, as it finally displayed for the 2007 Federal elections, that has been taken down, REWORKED, and now displays elsewhere than where originally posted. See:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3212#76453

Thanks for the link Forrest.

Hazza
I am with you. If people took the time out to read the Green's policies they may find there is a lot more than just the environmental platform. Personally, I don't know how decisions or policy can be made without consideration of environmental or humanitarian factors. Surely protection of the environment is crucial to our survival. Some believe humans extraordinary to the ecosystem but we are a vital part to it and have the capacity to destroy it with poor decision making.

Like Gerrit, I hope there will also be a surge in some good independents as well so we can balance out the major parties who are both set on the same path, and who reduce our choices should we not agree with the direction they are taking us.

I am going to be away for a while. Thanks for all your comments.

There are two issues.

Clearly the current system, of voting via 'representatives', is not and can never be as representative of the will of the people, as a system in which the people could vote on proposed laws directly. (Pericles you have not shown any reason, apart from your presumed omniscience, why the legislative sovereignty could not be exercised directly by the people.)

But even if we had such a system, what makes you think that that would make for a better society? Why should everyone's life, livelihood, property and liberties be decided on by everyone else on a majority basis? And who should get to vote? Why just the people of a State? What sense is there in deciding by State boundaries left over from history? Why not the whole Commonwealth? Why not everyone in the world?

If China and India got to vote on your property, you know what they'd do, don't you? What makes you think that would be fairer or better than you deciding what to do with it? Well exactly the same thing is happening *within* democracies. (Pericles you have not shown any reason why that is better than for any given decision *not* to be made by government.)

It is true that the Australian constitution, like the American constitution, has utterly failed to restrict government to within the limits it prescribes. But what do you expect? The much-vaunted checks and balances are themselves agents of government

That's more than a sidestep, Peter Hume. That's a tap dance.

>>(Pericles you have not shown any reason, apart from your presumed omniscience, why the legislative sovereignty could not be exercised directly by the people.)<<

(Thanks for the parentheses. They're actually quite comfortable)

I suspect that you are becoming a bit tied up in your own logical ball of string.

The "legislative sovereignty" is a concept that you have just introduced here, and - since it is captivatingly vague - I assume that you want it to mean something important, without actually saying what it is.

If you mean, is there a place for referenda in our relationship with our government, I'd say that yes, there is.

If you mean, is there a place for the people to become directly involved in the creation, amendment and approval by greater than fifty percent of every single law, I'd say, you're kidding, aren't you.

But do tell. What is "legislative sovereignty" and how should it be "exercised directly by the people".

Don't forget, that you yourself pointed out that:

>>The majority are as capable of error, greed and violence as any minority. What makes you think their opinion, even if it were accurately represented, is going to be any good? If a majority favour persecuting homosexuals, or drowning witches, or boat people, does that make it okay?<<

Which at first blush, appears to negate any form of decision at all, as meeting your criteria.

It certainly states, quite categorically, that you believe "the legislative sovereignty could not be exercised directly by the people"

So tell us - given that I totally accept that I am in no way shape or form omniscient ('cos if I were, I'd already know) - and given that you would neither accept representation, nor a majority vote (who'd drown witches)...

...what are your criteria for selecting our government?

At the risk of sounding prescient, rather than omniscient, I'd suggest you will have to back of from at least one of those positions in order to answer the question

One more thing before I head off. If you can get hold of the transcript from today's National Press Club talk by retiring Clerk of the Senate, Harry Evans please read it.

It highlights many of the issues raised on OLO about accountability.

Putting power into the hands of citizens is one approach as others have suggested (how far do we go with this?) and the other is to ensure the systems of accountability are up to speed - the parliamentary systems and processes that keeps the government honest and open to scrutiny. This includes relevant and effective Senate processes, parliamentary committees and Estimates committees.

I will miss Harry Evans and his 'trouble-making' ways, his dogged and relentless goal in keeping the politicians honest. If you lose the systems of accountability you will lose track of the way money is spent or wasted and monitoring payments to 'friends'. Secrecy is the nature of politics but it should not be the nature of Parliament and necessary mechanisms to ensure transparency are crucial.

Mr Evans raised the AWB Inquiry and the fact that many believe we will never know the full story - while Government held a majority in the Senate.

It is situations like this that are open to manipulation in terms of the sorts of questions asked and the information available for release.

Harry Evans's speech is worth a read once it comes up on the NPC site.

http://www.npc.org.au/

Pelican

<< If people took the time out to read the Green's policies they may find there is a lot more than just the environmental platform. >>

I agree. You wouldn't necessarily even need to do that. Just tuning in to the regular press statements made by Bob Brown, Sarah Hanson-Young and the other Greens on a wide range of issues would soon clearly demonstrate the comprehensive scope of Greens policy.

So often, it's the Greens who are providing the opposition to government policy and speaking up as the conscience of the nation. Whether it's on the treatment of asylum seekers, indigenous Australians, the homeless, the plight of political prisoners, there are a whole host of issues on which the Greens lead the nation. Indicative of all they stand for is the recent generosity of Bob Brown towards the Australian photo journalist held in Somalia.

If we were hearing more from the Greens on climate change and less of the political posturing of the two major parties, we'd all be so much better informed and inspired and motivated to make the changes needed. They would have been talking up all the wonderful opportunities that other countries have been exploring for many years now, all the promising possibilities of alternative ways of sourcing energy and living sustainably and all the job creation opportunites that would continue to open up as we headed down that path.

No, instead we're left with Rudd unable or unwilling to properly sell his policy message and Abbott ranting on about a great big new tax. Deriding the Greens and keeping them on the margins means we're all being kept in the dark on the most pressing issue of our time.

I addressed this very issue in Peter's constitution topic.
Who and how is his plan going disseminate the requisite information, who is going to understand it, and when will those who can, do this?

I can't see people wading through pages of appropriate technical, statistical, scientific information necessary to vote meaningfully on legislation.
One needs to consider diplomacy and security decisions too.

We need to understand the process/purpose of 1st , 2nd , 3rd reading speeches and committee structures etc., all adding up to *masses of work * for the representatives.
There is no functional way a part time parliamentary citizenry could do this.
Embedded in the system are a myriad of checks and balances.

As I have said before, IMO, the two key distorting factors in the main work of the parliament are the party structure, the notion of a winners and losers (govt V opposition) and non-parliamentary influences.

The government passes what ever it wants, within the whims of a un-mandated leader, while the other side are, legislatively speaking, a bunch of spoilers, lead by a likewise un-mandated leader, all this is regardless of good of the country. Both these are along un-democratically formed party policy (dogma). The result? 2nd rate governance an 3rd rate usage of resources.

The party system is a key inhibitor to the representatives being more sensitive to their electorates. Without it a mechanism could be structured to remove a non performing representative.
Democracy like capitalism works with total participation , fair competition, between equals, given that neither system functionally has the above criteria, both are proportionally
dysfunctional.

This doesn't imply communism, socialism et sec, merely equality in representation under law and legislation.

The last issue is non parliamentary interference by way of unfair access to the media and influence on the representatives through money. The loudest isn't necessarily correct or in the citizenry's interest (s).

North Queensland separation has been denied officially by K.Rudd today. This separation has been requested numerous times over the course of 150 years at least. The attempts have always been due to a sense of under representation and also under funding. It is ironic that the cities will often complain why they have to pay for the kind people of the Torres Strait, the Indigenous and also the mainstream citizens of the regional centres. However it is always these areas that are backbone to the economy. Why do cities benefit more from the bush than the people of the bush? There is something seriously wrong here.

TheMissus,

You are throwing around wild and irrational assumptions like grain to free range chooks and as accurate.

FYI all electorates roughly hold the same number of voters, so under a democracy you get the same representation as any similar number of voters.

Not all city folk complain about funding the the northern indigenous communities. In fact I'd be prepared there are more people in the south that care about them than the genuine caring northerners.

Likewise the north gets more $ per head per capita that the south.

The problem is that the population is more spread out and it needs more money to service the area.

In truth the northern argument is similar to those on the Morton bay islands there are a limited number of then but they "need" to have disproportional amounts of funding. The question is why? They chose to live there knowing the conditions.

Apart from the basics which cost more it's a case of what you see is what you get.

Examinator. More money maybe required but NQ makes most of the money. Beattie himself said Brisbane could not survive without North Queensland. The south are thieves essentially because of this mindset. Why should they pay more ? because they wouldn't have anything without us possibly.

Then the environment. Always from south we hear we must pay for cleaner seas project, we must change farming habits, we must stop growing tobacco, we must stop fishing. we must stop loggin But never any payback for complying with the requests. We want you out of work essentially is what they say, we do not actually care about people.

Queensland needs to sepaaret for this reason. All take, take, take. demand. demand but never giving.

Pelican- I agree completely- especially about the independents, whom we need more of very dearly.

Hume:
As I already said- whatever "rights" or laws a society would live under will ALWAYS be thought of, and implemented by somebody- so it's only natural that the entire society which will be made to adhere to these laws has the right to actually say what they actually are- otherwise it's nothing but one person, or a small group of people dictating to the rest.

Now, when people vote on laws and rights, they would consider what actions they would themselves feel entitled to commit without breaking the law doing so, and those that they feel would
a) infringe upon their quality of life
and very importantly
b)feel no need to practice themselves

Now, the "who qualifies as the electorate" question is simply the nation- that would be the point of sovereignty of which the community itself and those outside consider no need to control beyond themselves- like how the Swiss vote not to enter the EU, compromising their own sovereignty in exchange for a greater say in the running of the federation.

Similarly, if in a fully-democratic nation, if a region wanted more sovereignty, and it was put to federal referendum, the rest of the nation would weigh if they personally wanted to interfere with the other region, or would rather have that region have less interference in their own policies- also weighing in security concerns- which can be debated.

Similar story to various other drawing up of national boundaries (including local referenda by each town/region asking which federation- or none at all- they would rather be a part of.

King Hazza,

I'm prepared to give the Greens a go.

Anything so serious as to require immediate competance from our government would require waiting for an election anyway, no matter who was in.

In the meantime, even if parliament took a three year holiday, I suspect that we could all just go on memorising all existing Australian law (ignorance is no excuse!) and getting on with our lives. Even in the event of military invasion (the Mussorians, say) there is no urgency. Upon reaching the mainland the aggressor would get mired in red tape and our boys (and girls, hat tip to Jacinta) will bayonet them at leisure.

Rusty

Nice one Rusty, I agree with that- nothing more needs to be said!

TheMissus

I thought there might be a renewed call for the statehood for north Queensland in the leadup to the Queensland's 150 birthday, which was a few days ago. But I've heard nothing.

A new state of Capricornia north from the Tropic of Capricorn or thereabouts does sound enticing. But when I try and find a significant reason for it, I can't.

I don't buy the under-representation or under-funding arguments. Our quality of life in the north is essentially just the same as that in SEQ and in the rest of the country. And it is just as well.

If it was significantly higher, there'd be all manner of discontent being expressed by southerners and there'd be as considerably larger population influx.

If it was significantly lower, we'd have a lot of discontent expressed the other way around, and we might have a population exodus.

Rapid population growth in NQ is a pretty good indication that things aren't significantly worse up here.

Of course SEQ gets the lion's share of the state's funding. But that's to be expected because that's where the big majority of Queenslanders live... and because that is where enormous funding is needed to just try an keep services and infrastructure up to a reasonable level in the face of absurd rapid population growth!

I don't think that more divisions, such as new states, would help us to improve representation or better equality in quality of life terms. We need less of this sort of division and a much more even rule of law and distribution of wealth across the country.

Stuff this business of different states having all manner of different laws. It all needs to be nationally uniformalised.

Yes, there may well be more wealth generated in the north. But it is much better to distribute this to the southeast and indeed to the rest of the country than to hog it to any significant extent in the north.