Last night I watched the opening of the British Parliament.
It was full of symbolism of old protocols.
I thought children should be shown this at school as part of history
and civil affairs.
At the start the Yeoman of the Guard paraded with lamps to search the
house and basements for Guy Folkes copiers.
Then the teacher could explain the relevance for the safety of parliamentarians.
Even our parliament probably has a look around for the same reason.

The tradition of the Black Rod and its relevance to the rights and
privileges of parliament as the supreme legal body in the country
that even the Queen or King cannot enter that house.
The teacher could explain why it was important at the time and why it
is still important today.

Bazz managed to avoid it and thankful for that.
Rather hope we become a republic and soon and that the nonsense like those robes and wigs get burned
Some may be of the court's dead sheep, with a few who wear them in the fire.
Hope however kids are told about two world wars showed film of piles of murdered folk and make a better future for themselves

It is their history Belly and they should know about it.
The wigs and robes are not what is about.
Black Rod illustrates that no one can impose their will on parliament.
It would tell the kids that there are real reasons for these
traditions because someone tried it on once upon a time.

.

Dear Baz,

.

I did not see the opening ceremony of the impeachment trial in the US House of Representatives, but I watched many of the speeches of individual members whose allocated speaking time ranged from as little as 30 seconds to a maximum of 3 minutes for the longest.

It was quite amazing. Like watching a merry-go-round in a circus.

What I also found amazing was the quality of the speeches. They were tremendous. Precise, to the point, powerful arguments – on both sides of the debate – for and against. I found myself ready to condemn and acquit, alternatively, as each member took the stand, if for only a minute and a half or less.

I had never witnessed anything like it. It was a real lesson that amazed and humbled me – which I shall never forget.

If I had to single out just one speech that I found particularly remarkable, it would probably be that of Senator Chuck Schumer, the Senate Minority Leader (Democrat), who spoke on the floor of the senate following Trump’s impeachment by the House of Representatives. Here is his speech :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2SE8oErsaJM

My overall impression of this unique, historic and most astonishing spectacle was that I had just witnessed the death throes of representative democracy. The elaborate system of checks and balances that had been designed to shore up democracy and protect it from tyranny had just been undermined by party politics.

It is said of the US system of impeachment that the House impeaches and the Senate convicts. The House had impeached Donald Trump, but the Senate will almost certainly not convict him. In all likelihood, it will acquit him.

The House is controlled by a majority of the Democratic Party. The Senate is controlled by a majority of the Republican Party.

Unless a miracle occurs, a tyrant will rise from the ashes of representative democracy in the United States of America in the early days of 2020.

.

Hmmm, yes well. The main lesson I have gathered from the last four
years of boring rhetoric since the day he was elected is that I am
glad that we are not a republic.
How much better is it if the members are not happy with the PM they
just vote him out as leader. A meeting and it is all over.
The PM goes to the governor and reports that he does not have the
confidence of his party and suggests that the governor appoints another as PM.

It has been going on over there for four years and may go for another four years !
Which system has had the least disturbance ?

.

Dear Bazz,

.

You wrote :

« … I am glad that we are not a republic. How much better is it if the members are not happy with the PM they just vote him out as leader »

That’s one way of looking at it I guess, Bazz. But the US is a republic and, apparently, the American citizens aspire to true democracy, not just hereditary rule by a monarch with a prime minister appointed by a political party rather than democratically elected by the citizens of the country.

There has been a lot of dissatisfaction expressed around the world with representative democracy over the past few decades and I expect that the current crisis in the US will have far-reaching repercussions that will affect us all one way or another.

Looks like 2020 is going to be a year full of danger – Brexit in the UK, presidential impeachment in the US, increased economic and political hegemony by communist China, growing international insecurity, weakening of international institutions, worsening ecological crisis, increased protectionism, migrant crisis reaching explosive proportions, continued widespread home-made terrorism …

Strong leadership is what is needed in times like this, but we don’t need a tyrant, a despot or a dictator. Nor do we need somebody who simply inherits the job from his ancestors. We need to be able to choose our leaders democratically and hold them directly accountable to us, and us alone – not to their political parties.

In my view, we have a lot to learn from the current partisan presidential impeachment crisis in the US.

.

Eeer Banjo the PM is an elected member of parliament.
That is why when the monarch needs to address the members he/she
cannot just walk in but has to ask black rod to summon them.
That was way back then when the parliament was in dispute with the king.
There are important rules that ensure the independence of parliament.
They came in over many centuries on what was trial and error.
It may not be perfect but it is better than whatever is in 2nd place.

I think Bazz has demonstrated that he could hold a Chair of History at any major university.

All we need is to see his CV. So dear Bazz, please post your CV in order for us to make a final assessment.

If you really don't have any training and qualifications in history then don't worry about it.

No Opin, I went to school when history was taught.
Your era revel in ignorance.

Mr O our Bazz needs no one to challenge his intelligence, like many he is getting on a bit.
But well respected in a group that in the end gave this country its first communications and many bright inventions
After that Bazz know you are well respected but in this matter provide me with hope for our coming [one day] Republic and the bright youngsters who will bring it and our own future about.

I am no astrologer Belly !

Bazz,

My apologies. I didn't know you did REAL HISTORY as opposed to all the historians, sociologists, archaeologists, anthropologists, etc., who did FAKE HISTORY. How stupid of me not to recognise it.

.

Dear Bazz,

.

You wrote :

« … the PM is an elected member of parliament »

Quite so, Baz !

But each member of parliament is elected by a majority of voters within his or her own particular constituency – not by a majority of voters at the national level (for the whole of Australia).

The job of Prime Minister is not limited to governing just one particular constituency (or electoral division). His role goes far beyond that. The Prime Minister is the principal political leader of the whole nation. We all should have a say in who is to assume that role.

I understand that the largest geographic constituency in Australia is Durack in Western Australia, an area covering 1,629,868 Sq Km (about four and a half times the size of Germany) with a population of 177,000. And the most highly populated constituency is Pearce, also in Western Australia, a hybrid urban-rural seat located to the east and north of Perth, with a resident population of about 195,000.

What that means is that our Prime Minister is elected by a majority of voters from one of those federal electoral divisions whose population is necessarily less than 195,000, i.e., less than 0.78% of the total population of Australia of 25 million.

So far, under the current electoral system, we have had no less than 12 Prime Ministers chosen by the members of the ruling political parties or coalitions and not by democratic popular vote, cf., the ABC “fact check” list of 11 Prime Ministers to which should be added Scott Morrison who replaced Malcolm Turnbull in 2018 :

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-17/fact-file-prime-ministers-who-came-to-the-job-without-election/6782652

Comparing our Constitutional Monarchy to the American Republic in a previous post, Bazz, you asked “Which system has had the least disturbance ?”.

I guess that depends on what we find “disturbing”.

Personally, I find our old colonial constitution disturbing, the fact that we don’t have a constitutionally-entrenched Bill of Rights, that we have a foreign monarch as our head of state and that our representative democracy has been hijacked by political parties controlled by an exclusive elite.

.

The PM is elected democratically, because a majority of those that
selected an elected MHR were elected themselves democratically.
The majority elected them and a majority of them elected him, and he
can only remain PM while he satisfies that majority with the government's policies.

It works, it has worked for a long time and governments are removed
if they do not please the majority of voters.
When a tie in parliament occurred the GG stepped in and sent them
to the people.
Republics settle that sort of problem with guns.

I note Mr O shows nothing of history as he does not express his knowledge on the subject, just abuse of the person he addresses. He does have a personal insecurity problem.

The Westminster system is still the most practical system of government in the world. It has been fought out through a bloody history to become the most stable and peaceful system of Government. At the referendum for the Republic a proposal was put forward that we change the Crown [the people] for a popular elected President.

When you witness the current debacle in America to remove a duly elected President; I say no to a Republic. The President then becomes the most popular person, which might be a tranny or queer, and not the most stable social institution, a family or queen. In our system the Queen DOES NOT RULE, she is almost hidden just accenting to laws and parliaments on behalf of us the people [the crown].

Josephus,

I only have an MA in history from Sydney. Please forgive me for not living up to your expectations.

Banjo, yes we have changed PMs a number of times, but I am not sure
that has been a bad thing, at least you can get rid of a dud quickly.
Voting for a President means you generate a separate power centre.
Also you get a politician in that separate power centre.

Mr O, obviously you are merely an unlearned troll, as you cannot discuss for an against with logical arguments of held positions. If you demonstrated learned facts about history you would not need to show off a purchased degree MA. It means nought unless it is used. Demonstrate you know history rather than sitting / daydreaming on the inside of a university.

Josephus,

I'm a sociologist, not an historian.

Do you know what the difference between sociology and history is?

.

Dear Bazz,

.

You wrote :

« The majority elected them [the members of the House of Representatives] and a majority of them elected him [the Prime Minister] … It works, it has worked for a long time … »
.

Yes, Bazz, that’s "representative democracy" and, as you say, it works. But for over a decade now, our compatriots have expressed less and less confidence in the system. Year after year, the polls have registered a growing disenchantment with our so-called “representative democracy”.

They feel that the “representatives” do not represent us at all. They represent the political parties that endorse them for election. Nor do our compatriots, in their large majority, place their confidence in the political parties to represent us. The political parties are influenced and controlled by an exclusive elite of private interests. To such an extent that the parties have literally hi-jacked our so-called “representative democracy” in their own interests and in the private interests of the elite.

The 2018 “Trust and Democracy in Australia” survey carried out jointly by the Museum of Australian Democracy and the Institute for Governance and Policy Analysis at the University of Canberra found that only 41% of voters were satisfied with democracy – down from 86% in 2007 and 72% in 2013.

Our federal government is trusted by just 31% of the population. Ministers and MPs (whether federal or state) rate at just 21% while more than 60% of Australians believe that the honesty and integrity of politicians is very low.

The continued decline of political trust has contaminated public confidence in other key political institutions as well. Trust was lowest in political parties (16%) and web-based media (20%).

The situation is similar in the US. Only 40% say they are “somewhat” or “very” satisfied with how democracy works. In the UK and Poland, the rate is 50%. France is 34%, Italy 31%, Spain 25% and Greece 21%.

The problem is not the Westminster system versus a republic as you seem to suggest, Bazz. It’s so-called “representative democracy” – in both systems – that’s the problem.

.

"The problem is not the Westminster system versus a republic as you seem to suggest, Bazz. It’s so-called “representative democracy” – in both systems – that’s the problem. Posted by Banjo Paterson,

So Banjo what is the best system in your opinion?
Do you prefer rule by dictators; China, Korea, or Saudi Arabia, Iran?
Control the minds of the population and have them obey you?
just what system are you espousing as superior.
What we need in Government is intelligent leaders, not party stooges, or quotas.

People who have doubts about democracy should be sent to non-demo ratic countries for a year to see how they like the other options.

Mistrust in our politicians is a good thing. Keeps them tuned in.
If we do not have representatives then we will have to do it ourselves.
Do you feel like going through the bill on changes to the interstate
transmission of fruit fly virus antigens.
Or something as equally exciting as a variation to the free trade act
on soy bean loading charges.

No ? well that is why we have representatives in Canberra.

There maybe, however, some flaws in Australian democracy.

"It is the extraordinary and inordinate influence our elites have over our politicians that has ensured that Australia today is defenceless, with educational standards below Kazakhstan’s, has energy so expensive manufacturing is disappearing and a level of immigration, including welfare immigration, well beyond the capacity of our cities, all the while being doomed to be a net importer of inferior food (if we can afford it) while our best agricultural land is increasingly falling under the ultimate control and direction of the Beijing communists." (David Flint).

.

Dear Bazz, Josephus and ttbn,

.

Josephus asked : “So Banjo what is the best [political] system in your opinion?”

In my opinion, no matter what political system we adopt, certain powerful individuals, major corporations and organisations (including political parties and religious organisations) will always seek a way to influence the decision makers for their own benefit.

Einstein is quoted as having said : “If I had only one hour to save the world, I would spend fifty-five minutes defining the problem, and only five minutes finding the solution”. I am not sure if I have correctly defined the problem, but the best I can do at this point in time is what I have described in my previous posts on this thread.

The most effective solution that comes to my mind is to seriously limit the extent of the intermediation of representative democracy to – for want of a better term – what I would call “run-of-the-mill” matters, and introduce direct democracy for all major decisions.

There were 16.5 million individual votes registered at the federal election in May this year. It would be totally unrealistic to imagine those 16.5 million individuals voting on every single motion presented in the House of Representatives. The only way direct democracy could possibly be envisaged would be to use well-secured, safety-monitored electronic voting systems in all state and federal legislative chambers.

It seems to me that only highly controversial matters and those of particular importance and interest to the general public should be subject to decision by direct democracy. I expect that their number could be no more than three or four per year, probably less.

Those are my initial thoughts on the subject …

.

Banjo, Parties who have listened to their constituents go to elections with policies that represent interests in an electorate. The Party with the most representative policies that affect that electorate garner the most votes. That makes that person the representative for that area. That substitutes population voting on every Bill before Parliament.

However I myself believe that the Senate should have representatives of sectional interests, like Farming, Mining, Manufacturing, Food retail, Energy, Roads and Rail and Shipping, Education, Military, National development and housing, Water resources and Energy, Retirees and Pensioners etc. Maybe cross sections of several representatives in each individual field, eg Farming into dairying, cropping, fishing, orcharding etc. The best in their field of expertise, no party politics. They are voted to a position by their peers and hold office for eight years.

Interesting proposal Josephus. One catch I can see is that by the time
you multiply the sectional interest by regional areas you end up with
a very large number of senators.
The oft suggested remove the sentae have a one chamber parliament
has its attractions.

I think people voted into public office should have at least some background/work experince in the field they represent !
I mean Lawyers & school teachers as Ministers for agriculture or transport is just idiotic.
The education system should be re-formed & any aspiring teacher should have some National Service under their belt.
It looks to me that it is during the school years that most kids are being dumbed-down by even more dumb teachers !

Bazz, The representatives in the Senate would be national or State, not regional.

.

Dear Josephus,

.

You wrote :

« Banjo, Parties who have listened to their constituents go to elections with policies that represent interests in an electorate. The Party with the most representative policies that affect that electorate garner the most votes. That makes that person the representative for that area. That substitutes population voting on every Bill before Parliament »
.

Yes, you are quite right, Josephus. The problem arises when some major multinational corporation with loads of funds wants to set up a giant coal mine or something similar in one of our (agricultural) constituencies (for example) with the promise of rich rewards in terms of local, state and national gross revenue as well as creating a huge boost in local employment – coupled, of course, with much needed infrastructure development jointly financed by public funds and the private investor.

Unfortunately, in situations like this – which are numerous and varied – the aspirations and requirements of the residents of the constituencies that voted the politicians into power are invariably ignored. Politicians toe the party line. If not, their political party affiliation is rescinded. The elected representatives owe allegiance to their political parties and are accountable to them. If the party decides to support some particular project or policy, that is what they do – irrespective of the protestations of any highly disgruntled residents – many of whom may have voted for them and brought them to power.

It is the multiplication of examples like this, both small and large, that is causing so much dissatisfaction with representative democracy. It is why trust in democracy in Australia has deteriorated to 41% in 2018, from 86% in 2007 and 72% in 2013.

It is also why trust in political parties has fallen to an all-time low of just 16%.

Hence my recommendation to limit the scope of our present system of “representative democracy” to mundane or “run-of-the-mill” political decisions and introduce a system of direct democracy in our state and federal parliaments for all highly controversial issues and matters of particular importance and interest to the general public.

.

.

Here is another example – in the news today :

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/dec/28/chinese-company-approved-to-run-water-mining-operation-in-drought-stricken-queensland?utm_term=RWRpdG9yaWFsX0d1YXJkaWFuVG9kYXlBVVMtMTkxMjI4&utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&CMP=GTAU_email&utm_campaign=GuardianTodayAUS

.

I hope that it's not true ! Can a Govt really be that insipid ? It is a Guardian article so there's a possibility of a bit of fake news.

individual,

It looks real to me and ScuMo and his mates haven't come out denying it.

You can see why I get so angry about Australia's politicians, bureaucrats and business people selling us out to China. They just don't care what happens to this country; all they are interested in is themselves and stuffing Chinese money into their own pockets at our expense.

My area of personal expertise is the environmental sociology of water so when I see these scumbags treating our water resources like this I get absolutely furious. Can you blame me?

There you go, automatically blame the Fed Govt when it is the state
govt that should be blamed. It wouldn't be political bias would it ?
However the Feds should be intervening if at all possible.
There is just too much inertia in the system.
There has been talk about the Bradfield scheme and talk that it is
being reexamined. Not good enough, there should be an engineering
commission established to decide which part of the general idea should
be tackled first and to call tenders for the initial engineering work.
No one, especially the taxpayers, will be satisfied until real progress
is visible.

Bazz,

If it's nothing to do with the Federal government then why are David Littleproud and Josh Fydenberg shown in the photo taken at drought-stricken Stanthorpe where the Chinese have been given rights to mine the groundwater? Maybe they just happen to be taking a holiday from the bushfires at the time?

Bazz,

PS Maybe they are on one of those ScuMo Aloha Hawaii holiday packages that are so popular among LNP politicians during the bushfire season.

Ok, let's see who objects to establishing a National Service scheme which involves the young to start work with pick & shovel on a Bradfield scheme.