This question simply asks- to what esteem do you place each of the political parties, and why?

What are your reservations about each party and candidate?

What policies do you support- and which parties would you expect them from? And on the flipside, which policies would be deal-breakers?

How competent would you assume the parties are?
How honest would you assume each party is?
Have past decisions/actions/candidates swayed your view on them?
And how would these weigh your decision on the ballot paper?

Try to actually name at least FOUR parties- you can bunch them together as all the same if you want, I just want a broader list to be considered in the discussion in some way (not just "The two majors, the Greens and the rest"- similarly, Independents are rather unrelated to each other- except the Australian Independents Coalition).

And remember, no party is out of bounds- if you want to talk about One Nation, Family First or a socialist/libertarian party, go for it.
In fact, if you know of a party that few others know about, bring them up for discussion too!

For a start I did not contribute to the thread that asks do politicians do anything.
I can not bring myself to beleive anyone can ask that question, and refuse not say that is childlike.
I am from the ALP, my place is center unity, the NSW right.
However I do actualy try to see all sides.
I find senators who are independent get far more power for far less votes than major partys.
That the familly first senator is miss useing his power and we will be better once the well named but useless party fades away.
In contributing to this thread, for a moment think about a greens controled senate.
Hear honestly their wants and wishs, just review what they wanted from the ETS.
Turnbull love him or hate him was closer to a true Liberal than those who deposed him.
His party in time, must/will return to its roots and be popular again.
Nationals?
A miners party now nothing more and soon to be an add on to Liberals.

The problem with Turnbull is he's more shallow and crooked than a degree of liberalist/conservative. His entire political life has been about using dubious spin, and his practices have been even less impressive (like milking taxpayers to cover his wife's renting expenses)- it suggests a man more interested in riding the gravy train than anyone actually wanting to do something for the country.
In fact, it was his appointment that became the last straw for me to stop voting for the Liberals- actually no, it was the NT intervention plan that did it for me.

As for Labor- again, too many strikes also- Keating's reign, Carr flogging off state assets to MacBank (and mysteriously joining their ranks soon after) and the Lane Cove Tunnel, among many other things state level, and Federally Conroy's internet censorship filter, along with compensating the coal industry and 'big Australia' sealed it federally.

Greens have impressed me more and more over the years- it seems they've actually started to get their act together and filled the space left by the Democrats. Opposing privatization is a plus, as well as the parliamentary pay rises (either which way I see it, it was a lot more than all of the other candidates who hopped straight aboard).

Democrats seemed to appeal in all the wrong ways- it tried to be a grassroots democratic party, but was staffed by WAY too many openly bigotted small-L liberals and people rather less enthusiastic about CIR in practice- so no support from me.

One Nation was a similar story- many of their policies were good, a REALLY grassroots democrats party on the conservative side was appealing- but too many racists on board, too much fuss on 'multiculturalism', and give off rather indifferent vibes to Indigenous concerns (although I doubt they're as hostile as the libs are)

On the note of the Senate, it simply highlights a big flaw of the representative system, in that the handful of minor seats basically make the decisions alone, while the majors simply vote among party lines.

Labour and liberal are virtually the same, differing only in their rhetoric. Their policies are decocted from opinion polls and have no idealistic component at all; idealism is for rhetorical purposes only. Liberal and Labor are in the business of winning elections--the slightly painful decisions they are sometimes forced to make are equally pragmatic; necessary evils calculated to count towards a future poll or to counter a current electoral issue that demands attention--prevarication being always the preferred option. The major parties thus precisely mirror the electoral majority in as much as this can be said to embody a political bias: it is in favour broadly of wealth generation at any cost. Politicians are corrupt because the electorate is corrupt and demands it.
The Greens, Family First et al at least stand for something; their primary function as minor parties, however, is to facilitate conscience votes for those who are rightly sickened by our rapacious system. The minor parties will continue to do well on the fringes, so long as their policies are never achieved. Should they ever break hegemony, they would transcend their mandate and cease to stand for anything, except of course for rhetorical purposes.
Such is democracy.

The trouble with Australia today is a lack of real teachers at law schools and in churches. If we had any fair dinkum lawyers in Australia, or even one, and he became a Supreme Court Judge,we would put all politicians in their place.

Any fair dinkum lawyer would know S 22 of the Australian Courts Act 1828 requires that every Act of a politician, has to be measured against the Constitution on which we all agreed. The Constitution is made under a Royal Identifier, and it was attached to it by the Master of the Rolls in the United Kingdom, after it received Royal Assent. The Master of the Rolls was a Justice of the Supreme Court of England.

The lawyer politicians have stopped using and requiring Royal Identifiers, on Acts, and our government is deficient for that. It virtually amounts to the creation of a new religion, that is parochial and not universal, and the books it uses as its catechism are all written by lawyers.

None of these New Bibles are written by educated men or women. To be educated its is neccessary to do at least three years at University, and then attend a church like Hillsong, or even an Anglican Church and become familiar with the Constitution and what underpins it and makes it universally authoritarian.

Politicians would make us slaves, but the Holy Bible contains the seeds of freedom. Its freedom comes from the Holy Spirit and only a jury can access these blessings.

Its an interesting question

I vote, according to my conscience, for a major party, although I do enjoy the “colour” minor parties and independent members can inject into politics.

The Democrats were a minor force, for a while and have since waned. It is always difficult to sustain the pretence of “independence” when ones leader is caught in bed (literally) with a senior minister of government.

Nowadays Senators Xenophon and Fielding add their own colour and input to the political foray and the Greens, of course maintain their presence (although many would say in the shallow end of the gene pool).

Imho the ”hustings” present an even more colourful vista of differing political hues. I always had a soft spot for the UK “monster raving loonie party” of whom, Screaming Lord Sutch was a consistent candidate for a parliamentary seat (and consistently lost his deposit).

The presence of such diversity is the essence of the democratic process. We might not like who eventually wins an election but at least we are assured the full diversity of beliefs and values were allowed their chance, unlike the “mono-party” systems, favoured by some “collectivists“.