Tapp, I have to agree with Col to a large degree. Take a look at some reruns of Yes Minister. The real power lies with those behind the scenes.

We dont have a dictatorship. We probably dont have democracy in the true sense of the word either, but neither did any communist country get that particular brand of politics spot on. We instead have a system based on democracy, that does a reasonable job of getting things done, but fails to truly represent each individual. Part of that failing is due to sticking to party policy and part is due to the impossibility of representing EVERYONE.

As far as access to members go, I cant comment on the city situation (but city-people seem to dislike contact with others generally, so I can only imagine that contact with your local member is not common). Where I live, the local member grew up here, and can regularly be seen around town, including doing his grocery shopping. Anyone has ample opportunity to approach him (although courtesy would dictate that you did try to discuss work with someone at the supermarket). Where I grew up, the local member supported all community events, was seen everywhere and gave generously to local charity (I was the receipient of a scholarship funded by his wife, as was one og my siblings). When my father saw fit to quit his membership of the Nationals in disgust several years ago (before I got the scholarship incidently), he was quite comfortable ringing the local member to explain exactly why. The same member, one being asked one day by someone driving him between towns as to why he waved to every car that passed. He wanted to make sure that anyone who recognised him felt that he had acknowledged them.

If you dont like your local member, exercise your democratic right and vote for someone else next time.

Good discussion so far. Well done all.

A few points. The dictionary definition of dictatorship may vary slightly from what we have today but the reality is we do not have democracy. For Col, read the dictionary and you will find that what we have is closest to "Oligarchy", not democracy at all. Read and let's hear what you think. Oligarchy is defined as "a political system governed by a few people". Ring a bell anyone?

I fail to see your statement re Tapp's "participation" in a dictatorship as valid. Is he not proposing to represent whatever electorate he may stand in? Instead of a pre ordained vote on every issue? If nobody actually fights from the inside how will it change? Revolution? Coup? Reality check Col.

Gadget, Labor ceased being the people's party as far back as Hawke and probably well before that, like after Gough. You're right about the appearing with children. It is sinister really as the public doing the same would be either foillowed, photographed, investigated or arrested. Perhaps it is as simple though as politicians preferring to appear with only people who don't ask questions or have opinions.

Arjay, when did any candidate for any major Party actually have relevant skills to offer? Skills relevant to what Ministry they might hold or committees they may sit on. The reality here is that it is the public servants and political staff that do all the work, not the politician. They just talk and appear, and vote as ordered. No skills are needed for representing the people in an electorate other than the ability to hear and provide strength in following their wants/needs. Experts are hired for their skills, not politicians. The currently favoured skills are lawyer or union official, both professions being trained liars. Perhaps that is the skill admired by the majors?

Country Gal,

You're part way there. You say we "probably don't have democracy in the true sense of the word". Remove the word probably and you have it.

Your last statement "If you dont like your local member, exercise your democratic right and vote for someone else next time.",

is actually exactly what Tapp is talking about. You don't have a real choice Country Gal. What you, and I, have is a vote for people we don't know, who are selected behind closed doors by generally unkown people for unknown reasons. Independents excepted. The ability to vote does not signify democracy. The USSR had voting too when there was only one candidate. Is that democracy?

Think about it. How many seats have we heard discussed between Lib and Nats where one decides not to run to ensure the other gets in? Democracy? I don't think so. We are treated as sheep. Bahhh.

What many call choice is really a decision about which major party rep they don't want the most. That decision is usually made based on the National Leader's agenda and has nothing to do with any local member. Do you agree? Voting for Labor instead of the Coalition is a devil and the deep blue sea decision. Many of us want neither but ....

Tapp “re No regard, respect and treat people with contempt as though they were ignorant idiots”

Somehow, I think you are either too far off the mark or maybe just too cynical to believe that anyone who has to be tested in elections every three years or so would treat their electorate so disparagingly. Although Latham did seem to fit your description and where is he now?

“Col one would also have to say that when or if ever you take your blindfold of and have a look at the real word you would then notice that choice has been cut.”

Oh my eyes are open and I do live in the real world too.

“People in government only have to do what is right and until they decide to stand for what is right we will be dictated to by these corrupt and deceiptive political party dictators.”

I believe a lot of people elected to government and opposition try to do what is right (although with the opposition I would suggest what they think is right, despite their best intentions, isn’t).

I see a negativity pervading your posts from beginning to end. Not the sort of stuff for anyone who needs to inspire others to vote for them.

Somehow I don’t think we will see you as Prime Minister any time soon but at least you can be assured, the reason you did not get elected is simply because more people voted for some other candidate who they perceived as being better equipped to represent them, in true democratic fashion.

Robbyh “"Oligarchy", not democracy at all.”

You get one vote, I get one vote, that is the process and it is administered by due process of law. That is “democracy”

As Churchill said “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the other forms which have ever been tried”

Robbyh “National decision is usually made based on the National Leader's agenda and has nothing to do with any local member”

If that is what you really think, you are serious wrong.

“National Decisions” are made either as a matter of among others, the following sources

Local and National Party Meetings and conferences
Focus groups, research and polling
Party Manifesto
Parliamentary Party Room Meetings
Cabinet Meetings

And are not just the agenda of the Prime Minister.

I would also observe, we do not have elections for a national leader. In the house of Representatives the liberals selection of a Prime Minister is from the party members qualified to sit in the chamber and the position of LEader is subject to challenge at any time (just ask Peter Costello).

I think similar applies to the Labor party but they are always squabbling so much it is hard to tell who is for who and who is up who most of the time.

So, what’s new? This argument has been around since universal suffrage and no one has done anything about it. Most of the people in Australia, or any other democracy, are not politicians, so why are we allowing so few to do as they wish? The answer is probably that most people are satisfied with their lot.

We “do not have democracy at all”? Nonsense. Tapp needs to settle down and review his definition of democracy. It seems from all of his posts and gabble about his own political “party” that he thinks democracy is a free-for-all.

As for “local members”, they represent their party, not the electorate. Unless you have an independent local member, you will get only the party line and nothing else. Local members are a waste of space and money. We should be voting for a PM and Cabinet only.

We do have democracy. Anyone who denies this should at least define what he or she thinks democracy is before they say we haven’t got it!

In the meantime, the people of Australia have the power to put into government a wide range of people and parties. If there are none at the moment that they want, they do not have to vote for them. Ever thought what would happen if most people showed their dissatisfaction by turning up at the polling both and indicating on the ballot paper that they did not want any of the candidates?

Whatever the problems with our political system, it is in the hands of the Australian people to fix it