Political parties are private organizations specifically intended to capture the public law-making power.

Parliament originated in about 1450, but organized political parties didn’t start to dominate parliamentary proceedings until about 1750, almost three hundred years later. So obviously it’s possible to have stable government without the parliament being dominated by political parties.

The first political parties were rather loose alliances of ideological fellow-travellers. However the development in the nineteenth century of formal party structures, discipline and factions changed the nature of parliamentary government. Now it meant that the most significant political decisions happen in private, by political parties doing backroom deals, rather than in the parliament. That’s why the public didn’t get to vote on whether Paul Keating gained or Kevin Rudd lost the prime ministership.

Modern Westminster-style democracy has degenerated into an elective dictatorship, in which the dominant party controls both the Executive (Cabinet and the Departments) and Legislature (Parliament). A member’s first loyalty is to the party, whose interest is taken to be a cipher for the people’s interest. The notion of the Parliament as a place where the critical issues are debated and decided for the public good is quite redundant.

The idea that a hung parliament is bad because stable government is good, depends on two assumptions that do not withstand critical scrutiny. The first is that government presumptively stands for the greater good. The second is that government should be more efficient rather than less.

The ordinary legal rules against fraud, theft and killing do not apply to legislators in their legislative capacity. The many can err as badly as the few. There is nothing about a legal monopoly of force or majority opinion licensed to loot or kill, that makes it presumptively socially beneficial.

And efficiency is only good if you’re producing goods. If someone is producing bads we don’t want them to be efficient; it’s better for them to be inefficient.

So it is with our Parliament: - what a parcel of rogues! I wish that more of them were hung.

If I was Julia Gillard I would offer Mr Oakeshott a position involving rural issues, to form a government, then leak it to the press.
I would say his electorate (whom he represents) would expect him to accept this. If he declines he would possibly be looking at a negative swing in the next election. Mr Abott might have to offer him a similar enticement. You could then sit back and watch the fun between the independents and Nationals.

If I was Julia Gillard I would cry, stamp my feet and lock myself in my bedroom. If I was Tony Abbott I would knock on Julia's bedroom door and see if she wants to come out to play. If she wont then Prime Minister Katter and his government of 3 can run the country, Green(s) will form the opposition.

That was a strange post Rob will do what he sees as right.
He always has and held his state seat with about 60%, in Nationals country.
He will do what his electorate put him in to do, get outcomes for them, bank on it he is not from my party but as honest as they come.
Consider this, look just for a minute and the Murdock media this morning, demanding voters turn to Abbott.
Is that the roll of the media?
Labor was clear two party preferred leader.
If we used such a system, if the choice was only Labor or conservative, betcha greens votes would go to Labor.
Not recommending that system.
Not unhappy with results.
This morning Labor in NSW should call an election , for next weekend.
Let the revenge voters looked for in federal election in this state run free.
Labor would in all probability be the third force in this state ,but far better than being betrayed every day by fools.

The first order of business for the new Katter Independent Government will be Australia's export of cow dung to Uzbekistan. Bob has already discovered that the Gillard Labor Government lied about our cow dung situation when they said during the campaign that exports to Uzbekistan were only down 427% in the 2009/2010 fiscal year, Bob has seen the real treasury figures, he's reported to have said "The real figure is cow dung exports down 893%", unfortunately Bob's promise of free lamingtons for all cannot now be honoured with the gravity of the cow dung situation. Tony Abbott said if they had voted for him he would have privatised the Cow Dung Industry and reduced Labors waste of dung from 972 tonnes to 971 tonnes during his second term of government, besides it wasn't a core promise anyway so who will care. The Greens spokesman for everything Bob Brown said "The Greens are totally opposed to the export of cow dung to Uzbekistan as the dung is not produced by bio diverse cows and is not organic, besides the Ubbekistneans are secretly developing a cow dung bomb to drop on Australia and are not using it for kiddies play lunches as they claim we got that from George Bush and the CIA.
See, nothing has changed business as usual.

Sticka,
The game playing you are suggesting is exactly what we should all be on the lookout for. The two main parties are so good at it that we don't even notice most of the time that they are up to it.
I don't hold out much hope that this will end happily, but i am prepared to hope. You never know the big two might have to be honest about their intentions for a change.

Maybe it is just because it is a Monday morning, but I am having a great deal of trouble processing all this hung parliament stuff.

The UK recently went through the same cycle, with a conservative leader having to accommodate a fairly substantial minority party, in order to form a stable government. The differences, however, are far greater than these superficial similarities.

For one, the parties concerned had developed, refined and presented their policies to the electorate over a number of years. Popping your head over the parapet on the Monday before the poll with a manifesto cobbled together from opinion polls and focus groups is not quite as convincing.

As a result, there are absolutely no principles involved, even at the level of the two main parties. Which, when it comes to "negotiating" with independents, means that the electorate as a whole has absolutely no input to the final mish-mash of policies that eventuate from the compromises that will inevitably be made.

So this is our reward: a "government" for the next three years that is representative of the wishes of absolutely no-one in the country.

That puts the concept of parliamentary democracy into some question, I would have thought. And in the process, makes an absolute mockery of the argument for compulsory voting.

I was told earlier that

>>Anyone who does an informal vote this weekend should not then complain about who does come into power. You will get what you deserve.<<

I took the advice seriously, and dutifully placed my vote on Saturday.

Am I now "getting what I deserve", suzeonline?

The outcome is not necessarily a bad thing. We are too hung up on the two party majority in Australia and a democracy which includes a number of variants to the status quo is not a bad outcome.

Parliament is better served with many Independents who are not tied to party lines and who will represent their electorates and all Australians by being accessible. Independents and minor party reps are generally more accessible because they have to work harder and cannot rely on the party loyalty vote.

It also means the legislative process will invite greater consultation and scrutiny and by nature Independents will provide some encouragement for electoral and parliamentary reform.

Not a bad outcome as long as stable government can be formed. Not to mention the benefit of not being beholden to any particular vested interests that may not always represent the common or national interest.

I believe it is an excellent result for the Australian tax payers for Labor has been humbled, Liberal can not crow, the Independent's character will be on display for all to see and the Greens have come out of the cupboard. All are going to have to work together outside the box for the good of the people and selfish ambition is the casualty. United we stand divided we fall. The new testament is about working together for the good of all and childish behavior doesn't cut it. If you do what is right and do it right it works. Two people on the election panel on saturday night displayed real immaturity and need to grow.

Yes, I have faith that the next govt can work. It will be a test for either Abbott or Gillard. If the next PM is successful, it would define a great prime minister's term.

Of Gillard or Abbott, I would favour the latter on the basis that Greens influence in the House may cause too much division, albeit that the latter may be more suited to environmental aims. The Greens will still have influence in the Senate

I agree with Pelly.

This result may, just may, give us a
government that may be forced to work
outside Party lines, for the benefit
of us all. At least we can hope that this
is a step in the right direction for our
country, where people will begin to matter
instead of political allegiances. Perhaps
this is the way our country should be
headed - with more independents entering
parliament and less party politics.
Wouldn't it be great if good decisions
became acceptable - regardless of who
proposed them - as long as they were beneficial
to the country. Now that would be a step in the
right direction.

Neither Labor or Liberal/National have been given a mandate to govern, look at the result Labor 38.5%, Lib/Nat 43.5%, Greens 11.4% and Others 6.6%. Abbott can't guarantee support in the Senate for any government he might form and Gillard didn't get enough votes end of story. Lets do it all again that's democracy.

Posted by Pericles, Monday, 23 August 2010 8:47:48 AM

" ... So this is our reward: a "government" for the next three years that is representative of the wishes of absolutely no-one in the country. ... "

Oh come now *Pericles* It's a fantastic result. The collective voice of the Australian people has spoken and has said:

" We bequeath not unfettered power to either the blue or the red of politics, and neither side shall make any law which as of July 2011 and the new Senate that shall not be subject to the full scrutiny and authority of the *Greens*

And let them squeal all they like about the Senate. Bring on a Republic!

..

Further, my view is that *Bob Katter* et al have a solid and worthy contribution to make, and if I were them I'd only start listening once cabinet positions and appropriate portfolios were being discussed. The same goes for *Adam Bandt*

I believe that when you have a hung parliament, it is vertually proof that neither is really acceptable to the public, the fanatics think otherwise of course. When the Australian constitution was written, it surely was written solely for politicians, because the people are unable to alter it or commence the process to alter it, and consequently, the only alterations that are made has to be instigated by politicians, but has to be passed by the majority of the people in all the States. This has a bit of safety, but not enough. There should have been provision for a safe non parliamentarian - a non party person, to place any proposal to alter the conditions, salaries and perks for our employees. It is then up to those who decide they want to be a parliamentarian, but the onus should be on the public – the employers, not on the people who are applying for that position of employee. They have an integrity commission in parliament, but the members can hardly say that they have any integrity, because when they join their party, they sign a promise that they will obey the decisions of the majority, I wouldn't call that integrity. Every organisation, in applying for employees in responsible positions, require them to present a resume, with definite proof that they have the qualifications for that position. These people who have been filling these position for at least the last 40 years, definitely do not have the necessary qualifications, and have proved it. The people chosen into the ministry are generally professionals, and have shown no signs of concern for wage earners. The fanatics deem otherwise, but it is dangerous to be influenced by a fanatic.

I think that the report "Hung Parliament" should be carried out in principle, like the earlier leader of the democrats would say, "Yes, hang the bastards". The 2 party system plays into the hands of the fanatics too much, I believe that the country - any country - would be better off with a common committee or board member meeting, any member of a committee will tell you that there is plenty of objections presented at those, but they are readilly recogonised as pure piffle if they are, unlike today, where such piffle is taken by the obscessed fanatics as wonderful decisions which will lift the country into unblievable wonders, and they never have, have they.

I remember Mr Howard trying to destroy Labour as a political governing entity (Labour is associated with unions) and Mr Howard tried to destroy union influence (less Labor votes/less members = less funds = less financial support to labour).
I look forward to a coalition government with the support of the 3 independents, one of whom would most probably be given a ministry, the nationals having to deal with an ex National independent rewarded for abanding the Nationals (not to mention- the bad blood) and the Nationals saying at the next election "we will no longer be a coalition because as a seperate political party we will have more bargaining power with the Liberals, to form a government".
Also of note is the fact that as at the last election where the High Court looked at McEwen, there could probably be referrals to the High Court again where the outcome of seats are close. It took 6 months to conclude McEwen, so there is a possibility that in 6 months time the election result is still questionable.

*Merv* I think that what you are suggesting is a new system altogether. Akin perhaps to *Rob OakeShott's* views or maybe a new system all together.

I personally favor a system with an *Australian Head of State,* a new flag, a Treaty with the BlakFellas if that is what they want, and enshrined Human (Australian) Rights and most definitely something other than the current 2 party preferred system.

..

I note from the ABC that Mr Abbott is talking warm and fuzzy, though how sincerely remains to be seen. And also that cabinet positions are being put on the table, but I for one wouldn't accept 1 for 3.

..

As for the *Greens* member well, I must say that I have a different view than having a sole preference for joining with the ALP. Reason being, is that I believe that both climate change must be addressed with accurate science at its core BUT that also big business must be brought along with it, dragged kicking and screaming if necessary.

Now, the best ones to whip the big corporations into line in the national interest is the Liberal party, and the best way for the Greens to earn economic credentials and serious player status and respect from a larger segment of the Australian community is by bringing about viable, transitory (capp exed) change in conjunction with the Liberals.

So, I would suggest that Tony ought start talking fast if he wants Green support.

Of course, we do need to see how the final undecided seats fall following postal votes etc.

I also like the trio of Bob, Tony and Rob and strongly support food security based on strong and healthy local rural communities which play a significant role in the management and maintenance of the land and its biodiversity in all its forms, including off setting the fire risk in relevant areas.

"that also big business must be brought along with it, dragged kicking and screaming if necessary."

"Now, the best ones to whip the big corporations into line in the national interest is the Liberal party, and the best way for the Greens to earn economic credentials and serious player status and respect from a larger segment of the Australian community is by bringing about viable, transitory (capp exed) change in conjunction with the Liberals."
DreamOn the Liberal party is the party of big business, you speak as if there is no relationship between the two. If someone needs to be whipped into line it will be Abbott and co and big business will be doing the whipping. Then you suggest The Greens hop into bed with the Liberals, the party of big business, there is no rank and file support for such a move, will they re-write our policy for us so we can gain 'economic credentials' and then maybe qualify for 'serious player status'. The ALP have sold their soul to gain 'economic credentials' and 'serious player status' and look where they are now. When the new Senate goes in to vote you will see that The Greens are very serious, so will big business.

Paul 1405

You are absolutely right to bring up this "shocking cover up" about the vital cow dung export industry decline....Catastrophe! it should be raise as a matter of urgency with Both The WTO; WHO,(KARES)sub committee. Where it can be appropriately formatted for the other irrelevant committees of the UN.

Then , in the fullness of time or the transit of Venus retyped, photocopied in triplicate for archiving. The original will then be de-collated by Secretariat of De-colattion (SAD), random pages will be shredded because "it seemed like a good idea at the time". A make work scheme by Secretariat of Rehabilitation, Lapsed Ethiopian Gays Sub committee (SoR LEGS). The rest forwarded for immediate consideration to be submitted to the Committee of Protocol (COP). After being security vetted, forwarded to the committee to the Joint KARES executives(JoKEs).

After due care or haste, it can be eligible for consideration the report on the surviving pages to be forwarded to the Secretariat of Conservation (SOC) for agenda-ising for consideration of submitting further.

If successful the remaining copy goes to the Committee of Linguistic And Generalizing (CLAG) where it will be urgently translating into 199 lingual versions of meaningless drivel for ultimate distribution to the members of the General Assembly. There they may, if they choose, pass the appropriate resolutions which will be vetoed in the Security Council. By this time we'll have a new partisan Govt and it won't matter any more....so why bother!

I also agree with you potential 3 person govt... weren't we unhappy with Rudd's gang of 4?

Chooks will be Chooks.

I know we are wandering a bit, however, ask around about the 66.6% top tax we had in the era of 1950 to 1970, how many people looking at that, would agree with it but this was the system applied by the Menzies government. They started working on it in 1945, and with expermenting, found by 1952 that that 66.6% was just what was needed to stop the excessive salaries and other incomes that were strangling the economy and the working community. You try to get any of the parties in parliament to put that tax back into work today, Peter Costello wanted 30% flat rate tax, Wayne Swan won't look at it, he's worried it might work, and the economy might come good and the employment might increase, we can't have that can we. You can't blame anyone if they grab a shotgun and fire a few shots, could you.

Dreamon, Yes I would sooner see a new different type of government, if we did not have politicial parties, people would be more honest and likely think of plans that were beneficial to the country instead worrying about what their party mates would think, and would think of the rest of the people instead. You must remember that our politicians are supposed to be our peers, our equals but over the years, in 1957, they gave themselves an increase, I don't remember how much, and also they isolated themselves so they are not affected by their chronic decisions over the last 20 or even 40 years, I suggest them getting a cut of 60% in their salary, although I think a cut of even 80% wouldn't leave them underpaid for the way they have run the country the last 20 years. What do you think?

Posted by Paul1405, Tuesday, 24 August 2010 5:36:46 PM

" ... The ALP have sold their soul to gain 'economic credentials' and 'serious player status' and look where they are now. When the new Senate goes in to vote you will see that The Greens are very serious, so will big business. ... "

..

*Paul* I agree that there is a risk that the Greens like all others will become corrupted the more they become enmeshed in the processes of temporal power, but I am quietly confident that their core is made of sterner stuff.

However, the science of climate change must be reconciled with big business, hopefully without the need for overtly aggressive and coercive tactics which brings me in principle to my next point and response to *Merv*

Posted by merv09, Tuesday, 24 August 2010 9:31:49 PM

" ... I suggest them getting a cut of 60% in their salary, although I think a cut of even 80% wouldn't leave them underpaid for the way they have run the country the last 20 years. What do you think? ... "

In my personal studies I also pursue an interest in psychiatric studies, as I have had need to care for someone close to me.

Gently, gently is the order of the day when introducing mind altering agents (excepting certain emergency situations) and in this sense I see this principal as a microcosm of *Merv's* question.

Let me first offer another example. If you are an addicted to nicotine heavy smoker, don't shock your bod and brain with cold turkey, but rather, slap on a patch, have some nico gum and an extra durry initially to O.D. to get a psychological associative boost from how foul ciggies can be in excess. Then gradually, reduce the patch strength until you're down to gum, and then gradually ween off the gum.

The pollies, lawyers, drs and dentists are human and replete with all of the same failings that everyone else has, and also often have families and commitments.

I agree though, they need to be clipped in everyone's interests including their own but gradually, in a manner not likely to cause overt damage, to give time for the natural forces of adaptation and personal evolution to take place, and without shattering the psyches of those affected.

*GreenBrowny* understands this I guess, and whilst I suspect he will hold a firm line on the science and the overall direction, I do not believe that he wants to sunder the existing order.

The way forward for The Greens is to articulate to the electorate our broad based range of policies on such issues as health, education, immigration, community etc, etc. Show we are not a single issue party, we are not purely a environmentalist party. Although the environment is and should remain a major consideration when formulating other policies it can't be, the be all and end all factor. It would seem to me the two major parties give far to much weight to the 'economic benefit' when formulating policy and only minor consideration to other factors. The catch cry of the Liberals is jobs, jobs, jobs, when they are really saying profits, profits, profits, profits are fine but again its a mistake to put the pursuit of profit above all else. Labor what do they stand for, I don't know these days, they have lost direction as their vote (38.5%) shows. You could swap about many in the major parties and no one would notice the difference.

Posted by Paul1405, Thursday, 26 August 2010 7:15:08 AM
" .. "

Yes, I mostly agree with you there Paul.

..

A little longer and we shall see who wins the remaining undecided seats.

Now we have Mister Zero Percent aka Steve Fielding, saying he has the God given right to block supply if a Labor government is installed. Bozo the clown would get more votes than this bloke and I would think Bozo would show more intelligence on the subject. God should have a quiet word in Steve's ear, telling him to "Pull your head in Steve and on your way."

Ah yes. Mr Fielding.

>>Now we have Mister Zero Percent aka Steve Fielding, saying he has the God given right to block supply if a Labor government is installed.<<

An additional bone for the dogs to chew on.

"The outcome is not necessarily a bad thing. We are too hung up on the two party majority in Australia and a democracy which includes a number of variants to the status quo is not a bad outcome" - pelican

"I believe it is an excellent result for the Australian tax payers" - Richie 10

"Yes, I have faith that the next govt can work" - Chris Lewis

And this was prophetic, merv09

"The 2 party system plays into the hands of the fanatics too much"

Yea, verily.

And it was so.

It be great thing if all tribe could gather at big meeting house, have powwow make big medicine, decide if plant corn or hunt buffalo. But we can't, not to practical, therefore each sub tribe elects a spokesperson to go to big meeting house and after much talk the majority vote determines if the tribe will plant corn or hunt buffalo. If they can't decide what to do then the sub tribes will have to elect new spokesperson who will decide, if this goes on too long then I suppose there is no corn or buffalo and we all starve.

Posted by Pericles, Friday, 27 August 2010 1:31:15 PM

" ...

>>Now we have Mister Zero Percent aka Steve Fielding, saying he has the God given right to block supply if a Labor government is installed.<<

An additional bone for the dogs to chew on. ... "

Well, on that one *Paul,* if *Fielding* technically is able to do this then I for one have no problem with him doing so.

Let "us" all see this crappy little tin pot system with all of its failings in the clear light of day such that hopefully Australians will stand united to become their own sovereign nation, with their own Head of State, with no Jack the Ripper in the corner of the flag, and no puppet, tourist attraction monarch who signs off on the abduction of children in our makeup,

with enshrined recognition of the Original Australians, enshrined Human Rights and a modern day more sophisticated system that snaps the back of the 2 party preferred system such that people get the representative that they vote for.

..

Well, I feel much better after that rant.
;-)

I note from the ABC that the seat of Brisbane is finalised and the final make up is:

RED - 72
BLUE - 73

GREEN - 01
OTHER - 04

How will it go do people think?

RED (72) GREEN (73) WILKIE (74) KATTER (75) WINDSOR (76)

or something else?

Pericles: Under a fairer proportional representation system base on their primary vote the Parliament would be something like L/N 67 seats, ALP 58, Greens 20 Others 5. Labor/Liberal have nothing to bitch about they have a far bigger representation than their respective votes warrant. the big losers under the present preferential system are the Greens.

Indeed *Paul*

..

Having heard today from *Swan* that *Adam Brandt* isn't being considered for a cabinet position, my view is that he and the Greens should without question withdraw their support from the ALP.

I will personally be extremely disappointed if they allow themselves to be side lines in this manner.

..

Thereafter I note that *Wilkie's* 3rd option as reported by ABC is also not to support either the red or the blue.

Hi DreamOn

People seem to forget that Abbotts Liberals to form a government already need the Country Party in coalition then they will need the support of the 3 renegade Ex-Country Party members plus next June he gets a hostile Senate. With the undue demands of all and sundry I can't see how he can govern effectively. Labor are dead ducks they can't govern at all, Mad Katter would see to that. The people have spoken, unfortunately no one knows what they said, what language were they speaking? The true answer is another election ASAP, that's democracy. I think both sides are trying to form a government in the hope that in a few months they will gain 'popularity' and then run to the people and hope for a majority. Playing the people of Australia for fools with their self interest only in mine.