Everyday we're confronted with headlines of our beloved country inexorably declining. Whether it's spiralling unemployment, rising prices, care for our disadvantaged, soaring personal and government debt, lack of affordable housing, rising crime, border protection or ascending levels of xenophobia in working class suburbs of our major cities.

It seems, whatever major party is in government, many of those who're promoted to a portfolio, seem paralysed and unable or incapable, of embracing those intractable issues that have been lingering about, unaltered in successive parliaments and governments ?

Often when a Minister DOES take a tough realistic stand on some politically contentious issue, the Senate, as a 'party political strategy' simply blocks it ! Surely, there must come a time, issues that are indispensable to us as a nation and as a people, require bi-partisian support.

It must also be recognised, opposition members also govern. And in so doing, they're as equally responsible for many of the most important issues receiving assent, thus becoming law for the benefit of us all.

The LNP are in power at the moment. Yet many of their Bills will never see the light of day - good or bad. Similarly, when Labor were in government, often the LNP would block many of their Bills, purely on 'party political lines' ? It matter little whether it's of benefit for the country, it's simply blocked !

Gee, all of this petty hubris and inconsequential nonsense is so enhancing for our country and it's citizens ? Can't ALL our politicians understand what their collaborative paralysis is doing, to this once great Nation of ours ?

Dear O Sung Wu,

I don't for one moment believe that things are
as bad as some people try to make out. We've
had doomsayers for years. And yet things keep
moving along despite them.

I watched "The Insiders" this morning with Barrie
Cassidy being back. And an interesting story was
told about the times of Malcolm Fraser's visit to
China - when apparently during some performance
of National songs - Australians were asked to also
contribute their National Song - and the journalists
present when asked to sing. They chose - "I Like Aeroplane
Jelly!" in full voice, as an Australian National song.

Which to my mind was a typically Australian thing to have
done. And while we still are capable of retaining this
laid-back attitude of taking things in our stride - I
think we'll pretty much be able to survive no matter what's
thrown at us.

Hi o sung wu, nice to see you back. When you do come back, you do so with a real thump don't you.

I'm afraid you are wrong about one thing mate, the LNP did not, because they could not, block any Labor bills. The only constraint on Labor was the Greens, whose input always made Labor bills worse when they stuck their ore in.

It most definitely is obvious the media & Labor will tell any lie that suits the lefty agenda, & stopping most savings in what was a very gentle budget. Obviously they have no interest in growing the pot for us all, just getting elected.

Foxy sweetie, you do always see a ray of sunshine, often where none exist. I wish that sunlight you see was real, but I'm afraid believing all is well is what took many down with the Titanic.

I personally would be glad to take a cut or two, to make it better for the kids of today after I'm gone. As a pensioner myself, I get really annoyed when I hear pensioners bitching they don't get enough from the taxpayer.

It will not be much longer before we have spent our way to becoming the Greece of the South Pacific.

O Sung Wu, I don't share your misgivings about our political problems.
At the end of the day, we are still one of the best countries in the world, one that is sought after as a destination of choice for many people.
So we must be doing something right!

O Sung Wu <"It seems, whatever major party is in government, many of those who're promoted to a portfolio, seem paralysed and unable or incapable, of embracing those intractable issues that have been lingering about, unaltered in successive parliaments and governments ? "

What intractable issues in particular are you worried about?

Right is Right, what on earth does the PM's religious beliefs have to do with politics in our secular country.?

o sung wu,

"Often when a Minister DOES take a tough realistic stand on some politically contentious issue, the Senate, as a 'party political strategy' simply blocks it ! Surely, there must come a time, issues that are indispensable to us as a nation and as a people, require bi-partisian support.

It must also be recognised, opposition members also govern. And in so doing, they're as equally responsible for many of the most important issues receiving assent, thus becoming law for the benefit of us all.

The LNP are in power at the moment. Yet many of their Bills will never see the light of day ..."

Er...I hope you're taking into account that the present govt achieved office by misleading the electorate wholesale.

I hope you're taking into account that the electorate does not take kindly to being duped "on this scale" and that Opposition Members of whatever ilk are blocking this govt's "surprise" policies at the behest of duped electors.

Notwithstanding, that govts of all persuasions are likely to pull out the odd policy to spring on voters...it's beyond the pale for a govt to take off its mask post election to reveal it's agenda to be "the complete opposite" of that which it loudly touted in order to win office.

Dear Hasbeen,

Unfortunately for Mr Abbott and his team, the public
seems to have grown tired of the kind of theatre
exemplified by Commissions of Audit, horror budgets
and so on. But sadly with nothing much better on
offer from other sides of politics - no wonder
some people are switching to the vaudeville of people
like Clive Palmer.

I am certain that many of us would be willing to pay
extra to ensure the future for not only our children
and grandchildren but the most vulnerable in our
society. I know I would and as you say - so would you.

I still believe that the voters will get it right in
the end - and that we have the capability to continue to
not only survive, but thrive as we've done to date.

Poirot,

After Kevin Rudd's Big Australia gaffe, when Julia Gillard took over as Prime Minister, she announced that she "didn't believe in hurtling down the track to a Big Australia". Once elected, she initially did cut back a bit from Rudd's excesses, down from 2.2% (doubling time 31.5 years) in 2008 to 1.4% (doubling time 49.5 years) in 2011, but the numbers then crept up again to 1.8% (doubling time 38.5 years) in 2012. It is now 1.7%. It is amusing to calculate time to standing room only at these rates (578 years at 2.2%). I am not condoning the lies the Liberals told to get elected, but this is every bit as bad. It ought to be possible to charge politicians with false and misleading advertising, just like people who sell consumer goods. The onus should be on the politicians to prove that circumstances have changed sufficiently to justify breaking an election promise.

Divergence,

".... It ought to be possible to charge politicians with false and misleading advertising, just like people who sell consumer goods. The onus should be on the politicians to prove that circumstances have changed sufficiently to justify breaking an election promise."

I agree....especially when, as in the case of the Abbott Govt, almost the entire platform turned out to be bogus.

Unfortunately the Trade Practices Act doesn't apply to pollies.

Yes I know, here he goes again, but don't turn the page and listen.
You might learn something.

I have recently realised that the failure of the Labour government and
the pending failure of the Lib/Nat government is because they are both
running different economic policies and here is the crunch;

Neither policies work and further more they cannot work.
We are now at a very low growth figure which is being used up by high
energy costs. Indeed taking the five times increase in oil costs since
2001 means that we are now in a recession and have been since 2007.

To make matters worse we are adding to our burden 200,000 plus extra
people each year. To equip these people in Australia would require an
increase in growth. However we do not have that growth, so we have to
take something away from the existing population.

Fact, growth is needed to pay interest on loans.
Fact, growth is needed to pay back loans.
Our debt is real and with no growth we cannot repay it without big
cuts in government expenditure.

This the fundamental problem we face.
Unfortunately the parties believe we can generate growth.
They are wrong, and until they wake up to that, get rid of your own
debt, spread your assets around and hang on tight !
If you are on a pension, start thinking about what sort of work you
might want to take up.

I agree completely, Bazz. Why do you think that our glorious leaders are doing this? It is hard to believe that they are really so stupid. Are they just going to "keep on dancing until the music stops" because they don't know what else to do, or do they have plans that don't include us. The sad thing is that Australia might be able to survive a global collapse with reasonably competent management, which doesn't include adding 200,000 people every year, among other things. Here is part of an interesting comment by "Paul" on Our Finite World (Gail Tverberg's blog, aka Gail the Actuary)

"B) What will the elites do — and why?

When things unravel the elites will most certainly not stand by and allow complete chaos to overwhelm them — they will definitely be trying to influence the outcome —- they will most definitely want to cull the population drastically. That MUST happen because 7.2 billion people CANNOT be fed post oil. Here’s the plan:

1. Declare martial law ensuring that anyone who resorts to violence to obtain food is quickly smashed down (the NSA already knows who the potential trouble-makers are):
– you have seen the militarization of US police forces:
http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21599349-americas-police-have-become-too-militarised-cops-or-soldiers
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887323848804578608040780519904
– Homeland Security has purchased 1.6 rounds of ammo “some of this purchase order is for hollow-point rounds, forbidden by international law for use in war, along with a frightening amount specialized for snipers” http://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphbenko/2013/03/11/1-6-billion-rounds-of-ammo-for-homeland-security-its-time-for-a-national-conversation/
2. Make no effort to feed anyone other than military forces and other key people (and themselves of course)
3. All petroleum reserves to be used only to enforce martial law – and maintain key infrastructure (e.g. keep nuclear plants and fuel ponds from melting down)
4. Wait until most people are dead.
5. Pick up the pieces"

http://ourfiniteworld.com/2014/07/07/debt-eight-reasons-this-time-is-different/

That is a bit too paranoid even for me.

Good afternoon to you all...

At the outset I believe, like most things, politics are all about 'perception'. Similar to the equitableness of the law, as an example. Whether it's the Labor Party or the LNP, we all perceive what we wish to perceive and primarily believe.

The reason the current government took the austere economic measures they did, was ostensibly because of the urgency of curbing the burgeoning debt levels. Therefore any divergence to what was initially promised, prior to the last election, is utterly justified !

Or a diametrically opposing view; these alleged measures rolled out by the LNP, were and are absolutely fallacious and clear evidence the government wilfully lied and deceived the electorate before the last election ?

Wouldn't you agree therefore, depending on the colour of your politics, both arguments appear, prima facie, quite valid. Relying absolutely on the individual's perception or consciousness of the efficacy and virtue of whichever Party they support.

My original point or argument if you like, is essentially this - There are no politicians in Canberra today, who are sufficiently 'statesman' like to do what is incontrovertible 'right' for either our country or it's people ! Their individual ethos consists of '...me first, and if there's anything left over, then give it to the country...?

Divergence first;
Regarding commentatory on US blogs;
Not much notice can be taken of them. You might notice a high percentage
of nut cases amongst those commentating.
I suspect that commentator is one of those.
He writes as though the US will be out of oil.
The US government believes they have plenty of oil.
They even believe they will become the world's biggest exporter of gas & oil.
Even Obama thinks they can supply Europe with gas if Putin cuts off supply to Europe.
He is wrong, they do not have enough by the time the liquid export
trains are built.
Like our government they believe in the fairies at the bottom of the garden will grant their wishes.
The US is producing a bit over 60% of its own fuel, so they would
have rationing but no problem with food etc.

Had to split it, I am too verbose.

o sung wu;
You said;the current government took the austere economic measures they did,

You have touched the big argument with economists.
Why is it that neither austerity or quantative easing are working ?

These are the two big tools they have always been taught are the way
to handle poor economic conditions.
Likewise most politicians have lernt that "truth" at the knees of
their Treasury Dept officials.

We may not have been in the current state if the previous government
had read the ABIRE report 117 and taken it to heart instead of
suppressing it from publication.
The report leaked out through a La Monde reporter in Paris.
Similar reports have also been ignored, eg NRMA part 1 & 2.

That they suppressed 117 is an indication that they know what the
problem is but either they believe their pet economist's opinion can
fix the problem or they just do not know what to do.

The economic truths were learnt and propagated at a time of plenty
of cheap oil and coal.
That is history, fuels are now very much more expensive and are
reducing growth by burning up the excess GDP.
Australia spends over $35billion on fuel. But we are now paying a
refinery charge to others and then an extra shipping charge back to
our terminals. That is an NBN every year.

Sorry but we got an opertunity to make up lost time when the US
developed their tight oil fields but it was only ten years and that
door is starting to close.
We should now be planning for a post oil economy and perhaps build,
while we still have the industrial resources, enough
generating capacity to electrify our total transport regime.
Australia is out of oil now and we cannot rely on others to give us
some of their oil when they will be short, even though they are not
as badly off as us.

o sung wu,

"The reason the current government took the austere economic measures they did, was ostensibly because of the urgency of curbing the burgeoning debt levels. Therefore any divergence to what was initially promised, prior to the last election, is utterly justified ! "

Sorry to say that that falls down immediately upon the recongnition that the LNP were fully cognizant of the fiscal state of play via the Costello instituted PEFO in the run-up to the election - that was delivered by Teasury.

And still they maintained that nothing was going to be cut - that everything would be the same, save for the carbon tax and the "Boats"

So they lied the behinds off in almost every area that they campaigned on...only to unmask their mendacious and sly tactics as soon as they achieved govt....in record time, actually, they divested themselves of all pretence of honour - and since then, it's been one foul policy and limp slogan after another.

It's almost as if they enjoy rubbing salt into our collective wound.

(And that they appear devoid of any intellectual prowess to boot, makes it a whole lot worse)

Metadata anyone?

Hi there BAZZ...

Thank you for your input, as always well considered. You're obviously across many of the economic ills and corrective measures we should've undertaken previously, as well as what actions we should employ for our future. And you're probably quite right with your assessment.

Also POIROT and FOXY are quite correct when they meticulously examine many of the LNP's broken promises hitherto. Though SUSEONLINE embraces a different tangent altogether, describing our nation as being the envy of many, while reasoning why so many wish to come and live here ? And my old mate HASBEEN, ever the sanguine conservative, always spreading about buckets of pragmatic common sense, while attempting to engender some positive light on our Nation's future.

While DIVERGENCE, amongst articulating his/her own arithmetical computations, actually embraced one of my own personal aspirations. The proposed existence of appropriate legal machinery, permitting police to lay criminal charges against any politician who deliberately or knowingly mislead, lie, or engage in conduct of a kind adjudged to be deceptive. Upon conviction, they forfeit all benefits arising out of their political career together with imprisonment. Unfortunately, these are but 'pipe dreams' ?

The crop of politicians we currently have in Canberra today, are generally bereft of strong character, infinite compassion, immense strength, 'steel' in their convictions, just men and women and, who are morally upright, and free of factional control. These men and women, should aspire to be in parliament for the sole benefit of our Nation and the citizens of our Nation, alone. Moreover they must possess the personal courage of being able to say and do what must be done, notwithstanding the consequence !

In conclusion, I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever, the third (3rd) World War, will be fought between the West and the Nations of Islam. Our world's fuse is burning outwardly, from Islamic Africa and the Middle East.

No Piorot, both sides have to break promises left & right, no political
pun intended.
They, and I include all of parliament, are struggling to keep control.
The longer they stand back and try to keep an air of calm the worse it gets.

o sung wu;
Well first I am no economist, but then the last thing we need are economists.

Your last comment is the saddest of all.
I think people are starting to realise that we, the "west" are at war.
Mind you a little bit of history does tell us that the war has been
on for about 1200 years. The 400 years of Islamic occupation of Spain
and the final battle at the gates of Vienna say it all.
The Islamists portray the crusades as an invasion, but it wasn't it
was a military campaign to eject the moslem invaders from that area
now known as Jordan, Palestine, Lebanon.
Before the invasion the area was Christine, Jewish and I have
forgotten the names of the other religions. Some are still there,
the Samaritans are one of them.
If this IS mob gets too big for their boots and look like invading
Israel I think they will be forced to bring out their checkmate piece.

I think the only hope we have is that another GFC might make everyone
step back from the brink.

Good evening to you POIROT...

Thank you for your several contributions to this topic, but something I did want to ask of you ? Why is it that you find it so necessary to ravage and plunder the reputation of the LNP with so much venom and malevolence ?

It's quite true that I'll not disguise my absolute enmity toward politicians in their entirety. But on the other hand, I don't feel I allow my personal aversion for them, to be so thoroughly inexhaustible. It would seem you can't permit an opportunity to pass, without embarking upon a virulent assault on everything they do ? Ferociously berating and haranguing them so indefatigable, so comprehensively ?

Despite the obvious, why is it that you do harbour so much acrimony and antipathy towards this pretty ordinary, lacklustre political party ? Really POIROT, Labor isn't all that much better, is it ?

Again, thank you for your contribution.

o sung wu,

That is a good question.

But, really, I'm surprised that you feel the need to ask it.

I have never seen the likes of a party that felt the need to dupe the electorate "wholesale"...I mean just about everything they stood for was a lie.

Are you telling me that the policy direction they have unloaded since the election was "in any way, shape or form" hinted at before the election?

From education "unity tickets", to white-anting Medicare, to cutting subsidies to the states affecting pensions, education and health...well the list goes on....(and that's only a microcosm of their nasty "surprises" - all of which are designed to eat into the healthy social fabric of our country)

Look mate, give me a reasonable LNP govt and I won't complain (much)...

But please take this rabid far-right wing bunch of Tea Partiers of dubious intelligence and integrity and flush them away before they trash the LNP brand completely.

(I hope that explains it:)

o sung wu,

And in case you think I'm an incurable leftie who wouldn't vote Liberal if my life depended on it.

I voted Liberal in the last two state elections.

However, I draw the line at what I see consuming the federal LNP.

perhaps it's a Western thing at the moment. The British Tories appear to be the template for the Abbott Govt cruelties - and the rabid Tea Party Republicans in the US are tarred with the same brush.

Fundamentalism doesn't look good however it's presented.

'Despite the obvious, why is it that you do harbour so much acrimony and antipathy towards this pretty ordinary, lacklustre political party ? '

I suspect Poirot is still embarassed about how competent they look against the handbag brigade. After banging on about how the boats could not be stopped and the carbon tax could not be revoked a lot of egg is still on face.

runner,

Oh yes...how "competent" they look.

Poor old Hockey is still trying to sell his "cruel" May budget in August.

They shelved Abbott's stoooopid PPL.

Morrison thinks it's great to commit piracy on the high seas, imprison kiddies on ships and then gets all frustrated when he can't plop them into orange pods and float them off back to India.

Brandis cancels his 18c and replaces it with something he doesn't understand and can't explain.

Abetz regales us all with his expert medical knowledge of 1950's research - and then tells us he didn't.

Abbott is flat out milking the MH17 tragedy while beating his chest and yapping in the direction of Putin - who, no doubt, is quaking in his boots (not).

I could go on...but I think you get the picture.

G'day there RUNNER, nice to hear from you...

I dunno mate, POIROT is no intellectual lightweight, so there's much more to her enmity then merely her distain for a conservative government ? As a Western Australian, she must follow her federal politics quite closely as she appears to be across many of the issues and the figures ?

Anyway RUNNER it good that two individuals, who are from widely divergent political positions, can discuss governments (plural) and politics, without engaging in some petty, personal recriminations.

I freely admit to you and everyone else, my knowledge of the machinery of politics, together with the associated rhetoric that accompanies politics, is sadly lacking ? Thus I cannot freely engage with anyone from a position of strength or specific knowledge, without first showing my ignorance of the subject ? Therefore, this most likely will be the last time I introduce a Topic embracing politics per se ? Thanks again for your contribution.

o sung wu, there was a time when I considered that Poirot was a computer.
I tried Alan Turings test on her and she failed the test, so I can
assure you she is real.

Never mind there has to be another explanation, grin.

O Sung Wu,
Don't put yourself down. Your life and your work experiences give you a definite edge in assessing many situations, including political. I bet there were many occasions when you discussed political matters with your colleges, being employed by both the Feds and State governments at times.

I find your views interesting and practical. Keep commenting on whatever subject you feel inclined to do so. I look forward to your input.

o sung wu,

u might not be across all the issues however your commonsense more than makes up for that. You seem to have a fairly good grasp on human nature and weakness which puts you in front of many academics kidding themselves that they somehow 'know' best. Even the simpliest of minds can see that 'academia' since abandonding logic by and large is a failure. They have produced self serving pollies rather than serving pollies. Even the uni in Adelaide gave Gillard a top job ( I suppose in teaching how to be a poor PM). Somehow voices like you are silenced which is tragic to say the least. I agree with Banjos assessment of you. 'I find your views interesting and practical.'

runner says in agreement with Banjo -

(regarding o sung wu) "I agree with Banjos assessment of you. 'I find your views interesting and practical.'"

Me too...o sung wu is polite and genuinely interested in other views.

Jolly good show!

Me too...o sung wu is polite and genuinely interested in other views.

congratulations Poirot we can agree on something.

Yes, runner, it seems we can.

: )

Good evening to you all - RUNNER,POIROT, BAZZ and BANJO...

Thank you all for your kind words and your support, something I value beyond more than anything else you can imagine !

While it's true, with many issues and topics, I've a less than average knowledge or appreciation of the many intricacies and technicalities confounding many of our economic advisors and political strategists. I do understand, most are trying vainly to prevail over the myriad of economic difficulties facing our country today ?

However, I do believe I've a reasonable handle on what actually motivates and drives our politicians today ? Simply it's power ! With power one can achieve most things the venal human heart aspires to ? Power, can bring wealth, influence, position, even title. Further, real power can even subvert and debase the very law itself. Such is the immensity and magnitude of real 'power'.

There's but a gap, the thinness of which, a mere cigarette paper may not pass, is the fundamental extent between a politician and a master criminal ? Both crave power, and both seek it, by any means possible ?

Their complex salary package, enumerable allowances, rental and retirement benefits, unfettered use of a 'self-drive' C'wealth (funded) M/V, together with free fuel and periodic servicing. Priority arrangements always exists, whenever there's a need to fly, naturally, at the pointed end of the aircraft ?

And best of all, the right business contacts to be made. Even the humble 'back-bencher' can avail themselves of the many opportunities of linking-up with a 'Captain of Industry', any of which are keen to develop a close relationship with a MP ? All this is a result of conferred power.

I guess my suspicious and dubious disposition is an unintended consequence of over 32 years of being a copper ? The product of which is an inveterate, misanthropic nature ?

Thank you all for your valued contributions.

O Sung Wu,

I enjoy reading your comments as well. Re your last comment: I believe that all those perks for the the politicians that you have listed serve purposes beyond enriching the politicians who vote for them. One is to attract greedy, amoral people into politics, people who will be eager to do the bidding of the rich and powerful in exchange for personal advantage. The other is to coopt people who cannot be corrupted. A new politician from a middle or working class background acquires major investments to protect and expensive new hobbies with new friends to go with them. He soon ceases to identify with the people who elected him.

One solution that might be worth a try is changing from elections to sortition. Our politicians would be selected by lot and not elected.

http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/matt-hall/sorting-out-sortition

Bad people would still end up in Parliament, but it wouldn't concentrate them there as the present system does.

Sortition was widely used in the Athenian democracy

http://www.stoa.org/projects/demos/article_democracy_overview?page=all&greekEncoding=

Hi there DIVERGENCE...

What a thoroughly interesting concept ! I must admit I've never heard of such a scheme, but considering many of the world's greatest philosophers are Greek it's little wonder they'd think up something so unique and innovative.

Do you think it's probable that a scheme such as this, if it were to be introduced, some of those selected for parliamentary service, albeit their previous lives were impeccable, unblemished and ethical, once exposed to all that power and the trappings that power brings, might become just as corruptible as today's politicians ?

I've no doubt, such a system would produce some excellent outcomes, with many of those selected, unselfishly serving both their Nation and the citizens of that Nation superbly. Still as the saying goes, all you need is one bad apple to spoil the lot !

Would you perhaps agree, that prolonged exposure to 'power' and 'greed' are in themselves, highly contaminating ? And notwithstanding how moral, how ethical and how honourable a man may be, the close and continued exposure to absolute power, and all that it brings, will ultimately 'turn' even the strongest most resilient of men.

Because we all possess human failings, therefore those failings ultimately makes us all supremely vulnerable to the seductive lure of possessing immense power ! It's been said there was only one, who never yielded to the immense temptation of having unfettered power - and the legend goes, that he was tested for forty days and forty nights...?

You are right, O Sung Wu. People do get corrupted by power, but there would have to be fewer of them than with the present system, which attracts and gives preselection to people who are already corrupt. In the sortation system, there would be no possibility of re-election, so the motivation to take compromising donations or bribes to finance election campaigns would not exist.

We could eliminate those high salaries and perks. Politicians would be paid enough to do their jobs and live like most people in the community. They would get the same sort of superannuation that other Australians can expect, although I would give them veterans' benefits as compensation for having their lives disrupted for several years. Among other considerations, people who have gotten used to wealth might be more likely to enter into corrupt arrangements to keep the money flowing.

We could periodically audit the politicians after they leave office and also look for evidence of pay-offs in the form of highly paid jobs for which they are obviously unqualified.

We are never going to totally eliminate corruption, but it doesn't have to be the blight that it is now.

Basically the Two Party System is raping our democracy.
By it's very structure and nature it ensures that those we get to elect are the very best at backstabbing, brown-nosing and self-aggrandisement, hardly the sort of qualities needed to lead a nation, or any part thereof.
All the Party politician's loyalty is to self first, Party second, and their electorate a distant third, the Nation doesn't even figure in the equation.
For so long as we allow this bunch of self-serving and utterly untrustworthy power seekers to run our lives we are doomed to national degradation.
Australia still has a narrow window of opportunity to seize back our own country, but the pollies are working to close that as we speak.
If enough voters follow a simple dictum we just might be able to achieve something worthwhile politically.
That dictum is best summed up thus...
"Put the Partys LAST".

Hi there DIVERGENCE & G'DAY BRUCE...

DIVERGENCE, your thoughts do have much merit to recommend them, as I've mentioned previously, and perhaps it would go far in reducing the endemic corruption that exists today ? The only area that I could see that might (I say 'might') dislocate the proposal somewhat, is remuneration, and the attendant benefits that go with that remuneration ?

No matter what process we have, in choosing our politicians, if we fail to positively acknowledge their good works, by paying them an ordinary just average salary, then over time what we'll receive is 'ordinary, just average' output ? Don't you think ?

Hi there G'DAY BRUCE...

The trouble with a political system made up of individuals, rather than the party system, is we'd rarely get consensus on anything of significance. Nor would they (as individuals) necessarily embrace the very important fiscal or social issues that arise from time to time ?

Notwithstanding, I do fundamentally agree with everything you've asserted, on matters of moral failings and ultimate corruption of individuals. But I'm not entirely sure how a system that's devoid of major political parties, that are capable of consensus, would work ?

Thank you both for your valued contributions, I do appreciate it.

I reckon I've pretty well exhausted everything I wanted to say on this dreary subject. This whole (protracted) political corruption thing, depresses me immensely. Maybe, some of you may wish to continue with the discussion ? That said, I'd like to thank you all who've taken the time to 'value add' valuable comments and ideas to this pretty banal topic. I do appreciate all your efforts, greatly.

I agree with you completely there o sung wu. A bunch of disparate independents would be a complete rabble, & a recipe for disaster. You would have to have leaders to ever get anything agreed to in such a mob, & this would lead to the formation of interest groups. These of course would by a party in all but name.

The other major problem in such an arrangement, as the people of New England found, is that you have no idea of how your independents will vote on most matters. It is hard enough to be sure of a parties likely voting tendencies, but with independents you have very little idea on a very wide range of things.

For all their problems, I'll stick to parties thanks.

Because it becomes necessary to have the government made up of a number
of ministers, there is no way one man can do it, a cabinet system is
necessary. Then, you have to have a group of like minded members to
form that group. Then you have a party.

No matter how you elect them, they will end up in groups.
Usually for any policy there will be formed two groups.
This is because there is usually two options, yes or no.
If a third group forms they probably blackmail the other two groups.

I'm surprised at you Bazz, speaking ill of the Greens, Democrats, & past independents, particularly from Tasmania & New England.

Ooohhh, they might 18c me !

Hi there HASBEEN & BAZZ...

Yes a novel idea to be sure, but too impractical unfortunately. No, I think the only absolute way to ensure ethics and honesty amongst politicians, is to re-introduce the firing squad.

* Actually, the three words; 'honesty and Ethics' and 'politicians', somewhat of an 'abomination and a blatant obscenity', don't you agree ! *

You are right about the firing squad, O Sung Wu

Unlike the rest of you, I have considerable faith in the willingness of ordinary people, at least in reasonably large groups, to listen to good advice and do what is right. The Athenian democracy survived for 200 years while selecting its politicians by lot, not election, and their city was far more successful than other Greek city states ruled by oligarchies (essentially what we have). It finally all came an end, not because of internal problems, but because a small city state could not stand up to King Philip of Macedon (father of Alexander the Great).

An Athenian citizen was willing to serve on the Council of 500 or in other offices, not because he was given a huge salary and great perks, but because he cared about his city and wanted it to survive into the future. Making politics a road to riches is an insult to all the men who gave their lives in war time or came back with pieces missing. What is the point of paying lots of money to get the "best" people if they then use their intelligence and other talents to benefit themselves at the expense of the rest of the community.

If you really like our present system, perhaps we should outsource our government to the property developers and the multinational corporations. At least we could save quite a lot of money by cutting out the middleman.

Ah DIVERGANCE my friend do I detect a small element of cynicism with those remarks made in your last couple of sentences ? Surely a man of your obvious fiscal intellect must acknowledge the absolute necessity to ensure the nefarious ways of the 'middleman' are both protected and preserved ? If not who on earth will poor ol' ICAC investigate ? Surely not wayward (retired) detectives ?

Not much chance of politicians being abolished. To avoid confusion - I am a woman.

New Electoral System.

A National Lottery where every taxpayer gets a weekly draw numbered with his Tax File Number.

First and only prize is 5 four million dollars, 1 million is paid when the prize is drawn and a half million each year for three years, the remainder is paid on successfully completing the necessary Parliamentary appearances etc.

There is no other salary, perk or expenses and no person may sit more than three years, that is win the prize more than once; their TFNs become void for competition.

Now at the end of three years we'd have 156 MPs; they would not necessarily be the smartest of the citizens, nor the most honest, good looking, slim or intelligent.

However they would be lucky and that would have to be an improvement.

error above: strike out 'four' after the '5'.

Good evening to you DIVERGENCE...

Please accept my profound apologies for my inadvertent error in matters of gender. I do endeavour to ensure my posts are both accurate and amiable. Unfortunately, as evidence of my rapidly advancing dotage I do unintentionally make some silly errors.

IS MISE...

You too offer a novel solution to the question of parliamentary ethics and integrity. Though interesting, and maybe even attainable? Regrettably, the constitute bodies that make up the current parliament, are so deeply and intractably corrupt, there's nothing that would ever solve the problems that have perpetually cursed the current membership for all time ?