Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

[drsmithy]

Everytime i see the Italian government in action i curse that we don't have something similar here as we to could be a similar basket case if the Australian people would just wise up...

Doesn't a whole bunch of small parties in Government take on the characteristics of a committee?? And while in some respects committee can be useful for slow, ponderous consideration of issues before producing a response which tries to satisfy everyone, in most respects of leadership i don't think committees are thought of that highly... They are usually better for putting a break on things than driving boldness and innovation???

Uh, the whole point (ostensibly) of a representative Government is to compromise between the varying wants and needs of a diverse society.

You sound like you want a dictatorship with term limits.

 

[casanovawa]

The Greens are now the soft-left political party in Australia since Labor has left that part of the political spectrum behind. They and their policies are completely mainstream, and arguably they align with a rather large chunk of the Australian population, even though the party comes with so much baggage that people call them "wackos".

Anyone who was voting Labor before the turn of the century should be comfortable voting Green today. Further, if anything the Greens are under-represented in parliament. They attract ca. 10% of the vote but only have 1 out of 150 seats in the house of reps.

I wouldn't dignify them with the term soft left... As they have started to envisage themselves playing somewhat of a role in halls of power they have probably had to ameliorate some of their crazier stuff, as its easy to spout bizarre nonsense when you know you will never have to be responsible for enacting any of it... So maybe some of the more feral loonies are feeling disenfranchised at their 'shift to the centre"... But if any state largely represents the world view of the Greens it is Tasmania, which is a basket case, subsidised unendingly be the rest of the country who seems to be losing msot of their young people because their is nothing on offer there...

If that is the reality they want to impose on the rest of the country i think its not exactly surpising they can hardly capture more than 10% of the vote is it?? (be interesting to see what they get this time) The Australian people aren't fools and the majority want very little to do with the Greens in their current ideological state... I guess its too bad, so sad that the current electoral system is so harsh on them...

The main reason those one-trick ponies can carry so much weight is because of a two-party system that leaves the balance of power in the hands of one of two people, rather than half a dozen.

We would be far, far better off with a lot of small parties. Heck, as far as I'm concerned one of the best things we could do is ban political parties completely, so MPs had to represent the views of their constituents, rather than just go along with whatever their party said.

Yep that's the solution of course, an utter free for all, why hasn't anyone else thought of that...

 

[casanovawa]

Uh, the whole point (ostensibly) of a representative Government is to compromise between the varying wants and needs of a diverse society.

You sound like you want a dictatorship with term limits.

Of course that's what i want, i couldn't slip that by you that i was really wanting a dictatorship all along, you were to savvy to be fooled by my smooth words... Because term limits always work with dictators don't they...

Anyway, i think most people know what i was getting at there...

 

[drsmithy]

I wouldn't dignify them with the term soft left...

Well, they are.

I can't think of anything particularly extremist in the Green's current policy platform. Feel free to enlighten me, however. Try to keep it to stuff that's actually their policy, rather than fanciful interpretations of it in Uncle Rupert's newspapers.

If that is the reality they want to impose on the rest of the country i think its not exactly surpising they can hardly capture more than 10% of the vote is it??

That would be what we call a straw man argument.

Yep that's the solution of course, an utter free for all, why hasn't anyone else thought of that...

Switzerland comes reasonably close. One of - if not the - best Governmental systems in the world.

If you have any _real_ arguments why requiring representatives to actually represent, rather than just do what their party leaders tell them to, knock yourself out.

 

[drsmithy]

Anyway, i think most people know what i was getting at there...

I know exactly what you were getting at. You want a party with a "mandate" that can implement their policies without having to worry about compromise or roadblocks, from the day they're elected until the next election (at which point, presumably, you think they or their opposition should be handed another "mandate" to do the same thing until the next election).

Or, like I said the first time, a dictatorship with term limits.

 

[dajop]

And whether Tony had the temprament to run a minority government is a bit irrelevant as i don't think he would've and i doin't think his supporters would have wanted to him to make the compromises with the Greens that would have been necessary to do so, Labor could at least attempt to do so as they are somewhat similar travellers on the left with the greens skirting out to the looney side of it... So yes the minority government probably wouldn't have worked with Tony as PM as he quite rightly would probably have sent it back to the people as soon as he could where they would have most likely happily rectified that problem...

Semantics, but no-one actually needed the support of the greens to actually form government, just to get legislation through! So Tony could have worked with the independents and formed a minority. government. The fly in the ointment though would be working with the Greens in the senate and avoiding a situation where they blocked supply.

Any way, unfortunately since the demise of the Democrats (ie. from their lurch to the left onwards), a single party reasonably committed to responsible exercise of their balance of power has been replaced by various individuals and parties each with their own agendas to push, sometime at the expense of the broader community.

Lastly, whilst on the surface we have a two-party system (counting LP/NP as one), sometimes it feels as if (particuarly in the ALP) that the single party is actually comprised of several warring parties and factions. Perhaps we would be better served if the ALP Right merged with the Liberal Wets, to reduce the influence the extreme fringes on both sides of the political spectrum!

 

[casanovawa]

Switzerland comes reasonably close. One of - if not the - best Governmental systems in the world.

If you have any _real_ arguments why requiring representatives to actually represent, rather than just do what their party leaders tell them to, knock yourself out.

I'll get back to the rest of this a bit later, but i think the UN comes real close to it and in terms of getting anything achieved of substance in any real time how many bouquets do you think they get.... If you want nothing done, lofty platitutes spouted that also largely achieve nothing, hard decisions not reached or put off, plenty of navel gazing and pointless horse trading etc, etc, there's your model... Things almost get achieved in spite of the governing model of the place... I'll look into Switzerland with its canton arrangements, but if you named a largely insular, inconsequential state full of international bodies that prop up a place Switzerland would be up near the top of the list... Not sure i have heard about it being some par excellence putting all the rest of us to shame in tems of governmental structures...

 

[casanovawa]

I know exactly what you were getting at. You want a party with a "mandate" that can implement their policies without having to worry about compromise or roadblocks, from the day they're elected until the next election (at which point, presumably, you think they or their opposition should be handed another "mandate" to do the same thing until the next election).

Or, like I said the first time, a dictatorship with term limits.

I think your putting some stresses on the english language it usually isn't subjected to to equate a parliamentary party of duly elected individuals putting itself up to scrutiny periodically seeking the Public's support and agreenace to implement its policies for a set period and then being able to follow through on it before a review is mandated and describing it as a dictatorship???

And dictatorships don't usually have term limits, its a bit of an oxymoron to link the two concepts...

 

[drsmithy]

I'll get back to the rest of this a bit later, but i think the UN comes real close to it and in terms of getting anything achieved of substance in any real time how many bouquets do you think they get....

The comparison is absurd.

 

[drsmithy]

I think your putting some stresses on the english language it usually isn't subjected to to equate a parliamentary party of duly elected individuals putting itself up to scrutiny periodically seeking the Public's support and agreenace to implement its policies for a set period and then being able to follow through on it before a review is mandated and describing it as a dictatorship???

If a party has control of both houses, what prevents them from doing whatever they want until the next election ?

 

[Mogul]

Civil unrest.

 

[casanovawa]

The comparison is absurd.

Its not absurd, you have 193 or however many countries in the UN, all with one vote, all acting out of there own self interest, a few loose coalitions of convenience might form like unaligned countries, developing countries etc.. No one has a plan of action, no one has a program, no one has a mandate to achieve anything, all sorts of shady deals are done to achieve next to nothing... Its lack of ability to achieve anything is why you would never give it anything important to oversee... Even then they realise the relative stupidity of trying to get 150-200 individual entities acting largely out of self interest to manage or accomplish something and so turn over the most important and timely decisions to a 15 member security council, who likewise throughout its history has been slow, ponderous and immobilised by disunity at best and irrelevant and behind the times at worst...

The obvious fact that no country of any note, or business etc has gone down your suggested path of a free for all gives credence to the thought that it is a rather pathetic idea... You may as well save the time and money and just have a box in each household and each sunday night everyone gets to put up a vote...

 

[casanovawa]

If a party has control of both houses, what prevents them from doing whatever they want until the next election ?

The constitution... The Governor General... The States... You accuse me of putting up straw men arguments???

The fact that both parties almost never have control of both houses makes your somewhat chicken little musing rather irrelevant anyway...

 

[drsmithy]

Its not absurd, you have 193 or however many countries in the UN, all with one vote, all acting out of there own self interest, a few loose coalitions of convenience might form like unaligned countries, developing countries etc..

Which bears SFA resemblance to the representative makeup of a nation-state.

For all the argy-bargy in parliament, it's absurd to suggest that any two parties - or even two individuals - have opposing views at even remotely the same scale as, say, the USA and North Korea.

The obvious fact that no country of any note, or business etc has gone down your suggested path of a free for all gives credence to the thought that it is a rather pathetic idea... You may as well save the time and money and just have a box in each household and each sunday night everyone gets to put up a vote...

You need to read more about Switzerland.

 

[drsmithy]

The constitution... The Governor General... The States...

Didn't seem to stop WorkChoices being passed when Howard controlled both houses.

 

[casanovawa]

Didn't seem to stop WorkChoices being passed when Howard controlled both houses.

Ahh Workchoices had already been changed before they went to the next election by the backlash and media focus...

 

[Skyring]

If a party has control of both houses, what prevents them from doing whatever they want until the next election ?

Well there's the High Court. Chifley legislated to nationalise the banks, but that was knocked back.

Realistically, as a nation we have done fairly well regardless of which party is in government and whether they have control of both houses. We've even had minority governments, such as the 2nd Parliament, and they have managed to keep things going. We are now one of the oldest nations in the world and I think we are doing very well. No civil wars, no revolutions, no dictatorships...

I am not a big fan of the Greens, but there is no denying that they serve the interests of their constituency. We elect our representatives and they thrash things out. If they stuff up, we vote someone else in. It's not the best system, but it's better than all the others.

 

[casanovawa]

Which bears SFA resemblance to the representative makeup of a nation-state.

For all the argy-bargy in parliament, it's absurd to suggest that any two parties - or even two individuals - have opposing views at even remotely the same scale as, say, the USA and North Korea.

How do you know what the "representative make up of a nation state" would look like with no parties, little parlamentary processes etc, etc??? Who would be elected, what their motivations would be, who may have gotten them there etc, etc... And you think Bob Katter and Bob Brown and John Howard and Christine Milne and Barnaby Joyce had many things they agreed on??? Anyway, it doesn't matter how far apart they would be, if you couldn't get agreeance it wouldn't work and its usually the hard, important decisions that its difficult to get agreeance on, everyone can agree on the easy, happy decisions... Ask the parliament how many would disagree with them each getting a pay rise??

But i could be wrong, you could be smarter than everyone and have the one system that tens of thousands of learned people over hundreds of years have never recognised is so incredible... Or there is the minute possibility you could be talking a load of bollocks...

You need to read more about Switzerland.

Oh of course i do, it being such an amazingly, important show case of how we should all be doing it, i just can't imagine how i haven't read about it more often... Probably all that time i wasted reading history of the 20th century about all those other countries and governments and dictators and regimes that were actually doing something... But it will be right at the top of the list of my reading material from now on...

 

[drsmithy]

Ahh Workchoices had already been changed before they went to the next election by the backlash and media focus...

But it was passed in the first place, despite a sizeable chunk of the population (and their representatives) being opposed.

Which was, kind of, my point.

 

[joeymelb]

On a totally Off Topic lighter note. I think the book series 'A Song of Ice and Fire', or TV adaptation - "A Game of Thrones", are written by disgruntled ex-Labor Staffer... I am up to the part (NOTE: SPOILER ALERT, those still stuck at Season 3 LOOK AWAY NOW) where despised Queen Cersei cleaned out the kingdom's treasury with her coinmaster/treasurer - Little Finger - cooking the books. While the daughter of her enemy joined the "Faceless Men".... hmm mmm... It is pity that Draco was killed off in Season 1, otherwise he will make a good TA. (Sorry, just re-joined this thread after hours of readfest...)