Dear rehctub, doog, runner, Bazz,

Thank You for all your comments.

They've all helped. I raised this topic because I am
looking for answers. I was hoping that some of you
might provide them for me. You've made an excellent
start. I do appreciate it.

I hope more posters will respond and raise issues
(as you've done) that did not occur to me.

If we are going to base our democracy on a party system, then proportional representation is a must, otherwise there is no true democracy. The argument that for the sake of stability of government there has to be a bias in favor of the two major parties is nonsense.

All political parties are factionalized, none more so than The Labor and Liberal parties. In government strong leaders have for the most part tamed the factions within, and managed to deliver reasonably good government most of the time. The Liberals have had the added headache of dealing with a demanding junior partner in the form of the Nationals, but generally they have seen eye to eye on most issues, and with no great philosophical differences delivered reasonably good government, most of the time. Labor has generally done much the same, managing its factions reasonably well, and delivering mostly good government as well. Three cheers for the two major parties.

Unfortunately all the above went out the window with the Coalition government, following the downfall of Abbott and the election of Turnbull. The hard core conservative faction within cried fowl, and virtually declared war on Turnbull and his liberal philosophy. The result has seen Turnbull continually pandering to the minority hard right faction, on a broad range of issues, trying to curry favor. All this fisticuffs has resulted in the governments credibility with the electorate nose diving, and Turnbull being seen as a unpopular do nothing leader of an unstable bad government. No cheering from me for that one.

Dear Paul,

Thank You for your summations. I agree with most
of what you've stated. What changes do you think will
have to take place within the government prior to
the next election? Should Mr Turnbull try to convince
the voters that he is a strong leader in his own right?
And of course that also goes for Mr Shorten.

One never knows where to start when the Greens bookends get going, misleading themselves even further and proud of it.

The Senate is proportional representation. It was meant to be and obviously is, undemocratic. It is bicameral (undemocratic!). The federalism is problematic in a number of ways, with the main undemocratic issues, apart from it even existing, are differences in the size of electorates and the unusual terms that again were designed to frustrate government by having long terms, thus slowing change.

It bears repeating that it was put there to put a brake on democratically agreed change. Repeat, to slow or block the will of the people.

From the number of proportionally-elected, exasperating, unrepresentative dills in the Senate (and thinking of types like Greens' SHY in particular), and observing the ridiculous and time-wasting grandstanding bastardry that occurs there (remembering such foolishness as the Greens frustrating and voting down Labor green legislation), the undemocratic Senate is doing a rather superlative job of making the working of the lower, representatives house as difficult as possible (preferably impossible if the lunar leftists had their way).

That is precisely where most of the problems that Foxy says she is concerned about are originating and have done so before for other PMs.

At this juncture it is difficult to control the mirth at the ignorance of leftists who have been tub-thumping their political knowledge and acumen for years (how long?) on OLO. And they would be the first to opine that change is a good thing, not realising that the Senate is there to slow and block change by democratic means (and passed by the lower House).

tbc..

contd..
So lets call a spade a spade and acknowledge the rather obvious fact that it is Keating's swill, the Senate, that is the problem ATM. And within it, it is the chaotic, bloodyminded usual suspects who are so often wasting the time of both houses on such things as gay marriage and otherwise stuffing everyone else around.

I will not bother to go into the concept and subtlety of the Prime Minister's role and its vital contributions to democracy. Frankly, it is like reading the graffiti of schoolboys when the leftists get going on their favourite subject. Suffice it to say that even at the best of times the role necessitates balancing competing interests to retain the confidence of the Parliament (which should only be the lower house if it was a democratic unicameral system).

I believe that more internal democracy can help the major parties (Labor has to get rid of that cynical Shorten though). But Greens leader Dr Richard Di Natale has his work before him with the Greens factions, particularly the NSW mob.

Foxy,

I oppose changing our electoral system (apart from a minor change to the senate voting system to prevent votes passively exhausting) and I'm surprised that anyone wants to copy the dog's breakfast they have in NZ.

But the sooner more Aussies abandon the major parties, the better. Far too many people have fallen for the meme that good government means strong government which means government works better with a large majority. But in reality, good government means accountable government, which means they should have to justify every decision they make - which is only likely to happen when independents hold the balance of power.