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.