In this culture we have laws against corporations indulging in ‘cartel behaviour’ because it prevents the proper forces of ‘competition’ regulating each other and it facilitates domination by a powerful group with vested interests.

Is this not exactly what happens with political ‘parties’? Does not the rarity of a ‘conscience vote’ demonstrate how often mp’s simply toe the party line? If cartel behaviour is destructive to a fair system in economics why would it have any different effects in politics? Perhaps political 'party behaviour' should be illegal too.

Yeah, this is a topic in which I've had more than just a passing fancy - it's also the chief reason why I prefer independents; such was the original notion of democracy.

The way I see it is quite simple: every politician can have one of three loyalties.

1. To their own interests (money, power & ensuring he/she is re-elected)
2. To their party
3. To their electorate.

I feel that ultimately, number 3 should always be the foremost concern.
Every now and then I see a poster here, disgruntled with the political system, popping up to inveigle support for a new political party that will "stick it to the major parties" or something of the like. I tend to think regardless of their intentions, they'll either go the way of the democrats and perish, or if successful, their goals will gradually be eroded.

More independents however, would result in a more robust form of democracy. There's some interesting goings on in the NSW election to that end - if the balance of power is left with the independent faction, you can bet those seats will do very well out of it.

It will never happen, but could you imagine if a majority of parliamentarians were independents, and were able to elect a leader without following party lines?
Such a leader would no doubt be hamstrung in pushing through legislation, unless they were incredibly persuasive, but it could be a potential antidote to the partisan politics, with major parties that are beginning to resemble one another a little too closely.

Well said
That is why The Australian Peoples Party is different.

That is why freedom of speech is needed which we the people do not have in government.

The 2 majors are just business parties not for the people and a conscience vote now come on, It should be a vote for the electorate everysingle time.

And this is true independant democracy.

www.tapp.org.au

The profit system has within it its tendency to crush, check, and suppress competition. Everything is subordinated to economic interests or profits through exploiting the earths resources or labor power. Rather than human interests. To compete leads to 'blowing your competitor out of the water,' 'every man for themselves', or 'beggar thy neighbour' policies.' Now in a different way, the GST was designed to torpedo 100,000 small businesses and grab ten percent of everything produced. War too is about profits and commercial interests such as carving up the globe into different economic spheres; with a large commercial war industry geared towards war. Could you honestly say there are no big commercial, resource or strategic interests at stake in Iraq or Iran? This system does not start off as some level playing field where everyone has a say and competes equally. Briefly, the big corporations pick the politicians to get concessions and the inside running as well as making new laws. Just to ensure their rule and sway they pick the judges over a game of golf or lunch. As well, a small ruling elite make all the decisions, own the newspapers, T.V., and radio which bolster their interests in a masked form or use a 'cover', that is to cover over the relevant issues that affect the majority of people. To ensure his sway and riches Mr. Murdoch picks the leaders of the political parties similar to Rudd and Howard and after every ounce of treachery wrung out, he dismisses them. He owns about 40 newspapers and one paper might promote Labor and another Liberal. He is presently promoting Hilary Clinton in the US. Here is one individual who has enormous sway in the world. Cartels at time bind together for a common interest such as petrol price rigging. Competition for profits leads to monopolies. Although most of the political parties are mouthpieces for big money and big business they should be examined as a different kettle of fish than cartels. They should be examined historically and what class they fight for.

To get parliamentarians acting more like independents, the easiest way will be to elect John Howard as Governor-General.

Ironically our best chance to achieve popular elections for our Governor-General likely come after next election, assuming John Howard is returned as PM.

Peter Costello introduces Private Members bill establishing election procedures for election of Governor-General; Bill passes under massive electorate public support when he nominates John Howard to stand as the Liberal candidate.

Hmm... who might ALP nominate ?

John Howard likely romps home a clear winner of the G-G race to be the first popular elected G-G Head of State for Australia and Leader of the Government !

John Howard truly outshines Menzies in Australian political history !

Australia's popularly elected Governor-General still needs select Ministers either already in or about to enter Parliament to satisfy our constitutional requirements.

John Howard selects Peter Costello to be his Prime Minister as Costello is Leader of the House of Representatives, the Cabinet recommended by Mr Costello is sworn into office.

An ALP nightmare ?

After a few years of electing Governor-Generals, a few years of teething problems between G-Gs and Parliament, the Republican movement will perhaps try achieving popular support for changing title from G-G to President... are Republicans interested in anything other than cosmetic changes ?

Vote 1 John Howard for Governor-General.

The electorate is clearly switched on with this issue. Governments are beholden to the corporate sector more than the corporate sector is beholden to government. The question of who exactly is running the country is not a new question but it is one that is almost beyond repair.

American politics is the obvious example of the corporatization of government. Worse case scenario is a government packed with current or ex-corporate execs (see Halliburton).

The Howard Government is an good example of market-driven corporate friendly policies (see IR, Education, Welfare, Environment and so on). In Brian Howe’s new book 'Weighing up Australian Values' he asserts that this government's “intellectual energy” has been spent on “reinventing the Australian Economy” rather than “reinventing social policies”. He further asserts “new institutional arrangements” need to be in place or “further entrench inequality”.

Just like any corporation social policy is only good for image and it only goes as far as the shareholders let it - the bottom line is ALWAYS first priority.

The question is how can we change this reality? If only there was a true visionary out there. Maybe there is?

Until then... "Make sense who may. I switch off." (Samuel Beckett)

"The question is how can we change this reality? If only there was a true visionary out there. Maybe there is?"

Don't you think that the present reality is unreal, that it is tainted with irrationality? Or how long can irrationality last? Things and reality are not fixed, permanent, given once and for all time, they are in motion and subject to change. Is not change the general mode of existence?
The Marxist writer Engels commented on Hegels famous dictum - all that is real is rational; and all that is rational is real. " And in the course of development, all that was previously real becomes unreal, loses it necessity, its right of existence, its rationality. And in the place of moribund reality comes a new, viable reality — peacefully if the old has enough intelligence to go to its death without a struggle; forcibly if it resists this necessity."

Posted by tapp, Friday, 2 March 2007 12:55:01 PM
"That is why The Australian Peoples Party is different."

Is that part of the Australian Party Peoples Party or is the Australian Party Peoples Party part of the Australian Peoples Party, or neither - it cant be both.

You would find that would be both.

check out the constitution check out policies yes we actually have some

www.tapp.org.au

One can begin to understand all political systems and parties only when one can accept the fact that:

Those who actively seek power are inherently unfit to wield it.

This view explains why power corrupts and why political systems tend to devolve into autocracies.

Just look at our own situation where Howard has, under the guise of national security, effectively obviated a significant proportion of our constitutional and legal freedoms. Following 16th century political philosopher Jean Bodin's admonitions to disarm the citizen, Howard has dramatically neutralised each and every one of us. Our rights are effectively dissolved when the term "terror suspect" is applied.

Applying the term 'cartel' to the political parties is to mask the true evil that lurks beneath our two-party preferred system. We are spiralling inexorably towards despotism and tyranny and sadly we support this devolution at each and every "election."