Wouldn't it be great if politicians would remember
that they are after all "public servants," and that
they were there to "serve" the public not their
party or toe the party line. What difference does it make
who comes up with policies - if they're good for the
country why not support them? Leave politics out of it.
Political parties should not be like football clubs -
to be supported no matter what.

Hey Foxy,
"Wouldn't it be great if politicians would remember
that they are after all 'public servants,' and that
they were there to 'serve' the public not their
party or toe the party line."

I'm not 100% sure that's entirely true Foxy.
There's a Union Jack in the corner of our flag.
The national anthem for that includes this:

"Send her victorious,
Happy and glorious,
Long to reign over us,
God save the Queen."

If you're sent to prison it's done behalf of 'the crown' not the people.

Who rules us?
'We' or 'She'?

How can one have democracy and royalty at the same time?

http://www.msn.com/en-au/news/world/abc-news-quashed-story-about-jeffrey-epstein-due-to-pressure-from-british-royal-family-video-suggests/ar-AAJUitj?OCID=ansmsnnews11

Royalty and religion have both probably gone past their best before date.

Armchair Critic you are ignorant of the fact of history that the Crown in Australia stands for the People. The wearer of a crown is just a figurehead that represents the power is invested in the people and they, the people make the laws and on our behalf the figurehead accepts and signs on our behalf. That is to control the power of politicians against the people. You might want Marxist dictators, but we the people want freedom from control by Government.

Again you fail in understanding Christian faith it is based on informed individual conscience, the individual is self autonomous, held with equal justice and responsible for their action before a higher power than man or Government. Every effort to remove faith has led to mass murder, and that is a Marxist philosophy. The elite must control the minds of the people.

.

Dear Foxy,

.

You wrote :

« Wouldn't it be great if politicians would remember that they are after all "public servants," and that they were there to "serve" the public not their party or toe the party line »
.
How right you are, Foxy.

I think most of us agree with what Churchill said about democracy (that it's “the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time”).

Many have tried to improve it, and many have failed.

John Locke is often considered to be the father of modern democracy. He developed his political theory in “Two Treatises of Civil Government” (1689). He placed sovereignty in the hands of the people and introduced the representative government.

I think the problem lies with the political party system and Locke’s “representative government”.

Under this system, political parties endorse their candidates for election to the legislature and, once elected, owe allegiance to the political party that endorsed them and are obliged to toe the party line. If not, they are excluded. The result is that political representation, per se, is not democratic at all.

Electoral representation is hijacked by the political parties for their personal benefit and the elected representatives become accountable to them instead of to the citizens of their electorate.

As attested by the current “Brexit” saga in the UK, representative democracy is a de facto oligarchical regime. The elected representatives have thwarted implementation of the popular vote to leave the European Union.

Our political system must be reformed. We must stop the political parties from hijacking our democracy. We must ensure that our elected representatives are accountable to the citizens alone – all the citizens – not to the political parties.

To achieve this, we must redefine the role and legal status of political parties in Australia as well as the role and legal status of our elected representatives. This should then be made mandatory throughout the country at both state and federal levels.

The sovereignty of the people must prevail over all other rights and obligations.

.

Dear AC, and Josephus,

Thank You for your comments.

As always they are appreciated.

However, I think that Banjo Paterson has explained
things much better than I did.

Dear Banjo Paterson,

Thank You for explaining things so well.

I find it frustrating when watching Question Time in
our Parliament or listening to politicians and the
answers they give when questioned by members of the
public. Repeating the party line over and over again.

I agree our system does need to be improved.

First a note about presentism. Although the article isn't specific there's just a hint that they think of this phenomenon as new. To be fair they also suggest it is just greater than before. But new its not.

There's a famous story (famous at least among those who are studying the rise of Trumpism) of a NYT writer flummoxed by Nixon's 1972 win because she didn't know anyone who voted for him. And a recent article by a film reviewer talking about how uncomfortable he is in theatres with audiences who like films he and his allies have decreed they shouldn't like. To see the disconnect, check the relative ratings by reviewers and audiences on Rotten Tomatoes.

Australia, as far back as I can remember, has always had blue ribbon seats, where the voting indicates the region is homogenous in its views. Such places, even back in the 1970s, would have contained people who had no inkling of the other. And it still exists. Witness the anti-Adani mindset of the inner-city electorates who had no notion of how important mining jobs are to those 'others'. Ditto immigration. I've always felt the electorate would be a whole lot more informed if all the migrant facilities were located in places like Sydney's eastern suburbs or Adam Brandt's electorate. Instead they're stuck in 'bogan-ville' and the bogans are then ridiculed for being anti-immigrant.

But there's no doubt the separation of the electorate is greater now than at any previous time, although my impression is that this is more so in the USA than here. Equally there is little doubt that this is largely due to social media. Not just Facebook et al but the proliferation of blogs and news accumulators. With news outlets now captured by "27 year-olds who literally know nothing" news is massaged to suit the perceived audience. The current brouhaha is over ABC (American) admission that they had the goods on Epstein 3 years ago but suppressed it, presumably to help Hillary. But many won’t know that because even the admission is suppressed.
/cont