What would happen if a party won every seat

[Admin]

Just out of interest what would happen here in Australia if one political party won every one of the 151 seats and also the senate at an election. I know that just wont happen but for example would there still be an opposition? What would happen at Question Time, would that still exist? Etc etc

[facthunter]

 Some group would have to be very Popular or the election  rigged. Putin gets in with about 98% of the vote and most of the people who disagree with that die in strange circumstances. Nev

[onetrack]

We've nearly got to that point now, with the Liberals and Nationals and other minor parties all just becoming "also-rans", and providing no viable opposition to the ruling Labor Party.

 

When I was a youngster, the Opposition was strong and constantly hammering the party in power over their gaffes and missteps and poor decisions.

 

Now, we get some feeble attempts by Opposition parties at trying to score a hit on Labor errors, while these minor parties spend a huge amount of time infighting, swapping members, having standing members depart at a whim, and generally being bloody useless. Bring back some political Statesmanship (or Stateswomanship). We have hundreds of useless politicians and hardly a Statesman or a Stateswoman amongst them.

 

What's the difference between a politician and a Statesman or a Stateswoman? The first makes decisions only on what's good for their Party, their Lobbyists, or their own personal gain - a Statesman or a Stateswoman makes decisions, and produces future plans, based on what is good for the Nation in the long-term.

[Jerry_Atrick]

While it's hypothetical that a party will win all seats in both houses, it isn't hypothetical that a party wins such a strong majoirity in both seats that they may as well have won all of them, especially at the moment.

 

The old saying, "power corrupts and aboslute power absolutely corrupts" generally holds true, whether it is for personal enrichment, seeking to entrench power of disproportionately pushing an ideology. 

 

So what will happen will depend on the strength of the constitution and the constitutional institutions in applying the guardrails. 

 

On one hand we want to limit their power; on the other hand in such a situation, the electorate has spoken that it wants them to use their power. 

 

 

Edited yesterday at 07:38 AM by Jerry_Atrick

[Grumpy Old Nasho]

Which ever party won all the seats, they would then naturally pass an "Enabling Act" bill and block any attempts to hold future elections.

[old man emu]

For one Party to legitimately win an election in which other Parties are anihilated , then the winning Party must have had a platform so popular, and so sensible that to choose otherwise would be so clearly wrong. A basic knowledge of human interpersonal, nay animal, interactions tells us that such a situation could never eventuate. The idea runs counter to the very idea of individual survival instincts.

[Marty_d]

Only an utter bastard like Trump would try that.

[Grumpy Old Nasho]

Albo said not long after the last election "Labor is the natural party in Parliament".

 

What do you think of that?

[Jerry_Atrick]

At the moment I would agree

[Admin]

9 hours ago, Grumpy Old Nasho said:

Which ever party won all the seats, they would then naturally pass an "Enabling Act" bill and block any attempts to hold future elections.

To do that would require constituitional change incurring a referendum so one would hope the people would come to their senses for that. An election is one thing but a referndum on constituitional change would be a whole new kettle of fish.

 

My opening post was asking what it would be like for example could a member Cross The Floor and if so what would that look like...also wouldn't there still be an opposition but it would be internal rather than a defined party so bills may still not get passed? Would parliament become less of a child zone and be more professional because you could be more for the country rather than the against another party by still debating a bill but without the name calling and childish behaviour because you are in the same party?

 

Just some thoughts and questions without having the answers 🤔

[nomadpete]

I agree, Ian. It is an interesting thought experiment to try to visualise those scenarios.

 

Eg: Can someone actually 'cross the floor' if there is no other floor to go to?

 

Where can they sling mud if there isn't a opposition to target?

 

In question time, who would bother to question a party policy or law?

[octave]

I wonder if different factions within the one party would become a sort of opposition. This might be similar when party's meet now to determine policy 

[old man emu]

38 minutes ago, Admin said:

wouldn't there still be an opposition but it would be internal rather than a defined party

Something like that happened as a result of the 1917 "Conscription Referendum", which actually was not a referendum as defined under the Constitution, but a plebisite. Billy Hughes met opposition from within his own Party, so he left it and formed another Party.

[Grumpy Old Nasho]

7 hours ago, octave said:

I wonder if different factions within the one party would become a sort of opposition. This might be similar when party's meet now to determine policy 

That's exactly what would happen. Remember Labor members split away from the ALP and formed the DLP. The current Liberal party just held a crisis meeting to placate the members who were against Net Zero. 

 

There's opposition in all parties, but mainly against certain policies that are controversial within the party. Kept quiet though, pretending the party is unified hee hee. 

[facthunter]

That  was based on CATHOLICS, B.A Santa Maria. A case of religion interfering with Politics, NEVER a Good idea.  Melbourne's Archbishop Mannix told his followers how they  Must vote. Where's THAT end up ? Like IRELAND ?  where CHRISTAIN's KILL each other.  Nev

 

[nomadpete]

I see what you did there...

'christains'....  ha!

 

I know you aint dyslectic.