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.