Is our 2 party system just a con?

[nomadpete]

Just ban all partys.

Bring back democracy. Present a bill, debate it, then put it to a vote. Job done.

 

No need for closed door party squabbles. Just each member voting according to their conscience.

 

That will stop the present policy of the incumbent party claiming a mandate to do anything they like, and stop the opposition party automatically opposing everything the incumbents want.

[old man emu]

The sad thing is that we have lived through that part of our lives where we learn about politics and how good intentions become corrupted by the fight to gain ascendency in order to put those good intentions into practice. The problem the older generation now faces is how to pass on that knowledge to the up an coming gneration. It makes you stop and think that the 18 to 25 age group probably don't know what the Y2K bug panic was all about. They probably think that a dial-up modem is a take-away food delivery service. 

 

There will always be a role for at least a two-party system. The problem is to stop them from expending so much energy trying to become the incumbent and avoid beng the opposition. However, we can see from the current experience of US politics that a strict two-party system is not perfect. We are lucky in Australia to have those minor parties. Many might be one-issue parties, but at least they give the opportunity for the expresion of third or fourth opinions on topics. We might not like PON, or the Greens, or the Teals, or the Independents, but they are voices questioning the opinions of the two major parties.

[nomadpete]

My objection to the two party system, is that it excludes independants from the decision making (unless it is a hung patliament, where they hold the deciding vote).

 

Also, the electorate is forced to choose the least worst collection of herded cats.

 

In every election there have been good individuals within each party. But I have to give power to the undesirable individuals in the party equally to all the party members.

 

I want to pick the people who will hold the power. Not a party which inevitably will have some agendas I (and the party members) like, and others I don't like.

[facthunter]

We have a more or Less functioning parliament where the Labor party is women  friendly and have More than 50% in their ranks in the Lower house whose Leader has managed a good relationship with Donald, You could be A LOT WORSE OFF. THINK about it.  Words are cheap. It's fashionable to Beat up on Pollies, but expect them to do everything for you for free.. Nev

[Siso]

You mean the mean girls, they still haven't apologised for that appalling display

Edited 12 hours ago by Siso

[facthunter]

IF you had only independents they would form alliances and you'd have a new Leader every few weeks, like PNG. Parties have Policy Platforms and capacity for More research than individuals.  IF any group is changing Leaders constantly they are Unstable and Have lost Policy Direction. WE in OZ don't vote for the Leader Directly. It's up to a Party OR the Parliament and a combined vote of BOTH Houses is an option on Important Matters.

   . Qld STATE government is Unique in having NO Upper house, and only in Qld is the LNP a single party.. It's Pauline Hanson's  ONE NATION Party but I'd like that to be tested in a Court of Law  at some stage. She seems to Behave as though she's some Kind of Sovereign Citizen to whom the LAW does not Apply. A pretty Risky BET, I would suggest. Nev

[old man emu]

8 minutes ago, facthunter said:

IF any group is changing Leaders constantly they are Unstable and Have lost Policy Direction.

That's what is happening with the current major opposition. I might not like their policies, but I feel that their united presence as Opposition bolsters the quality of the Government. A united Labor Party in opposition should do the same thing. Independents and small parties don't have the capacity for research and skill in creating policies that the big parties have. I do think that it is ridiculous that the two major Conservative parties want to form coalitions, but don't just come together as a single Party to represent all Conservative-minded people. Surely such a new conservative party could work out a platform that addresses both Urban and Rural/Regional issues.

[nomadpete]

2 minutes ago, old man emu said:

with the current major opposition. I might not like their policies, but I feel that their united presence as Opposition bolsters the quality of the Government.

What a sad thing to say.

So, the quality of the opposition is the only thing we can trust to hold our government to a hopefully high standard?

 

Why don't we just vote for the losing party in the first place?

 

Maybe we should sack the government and replace it with the opposition.

 

Sounds like a hollow argument.

 

 

[old man emu]

1 minute ago, nomadpete said:

So, the quality of the opposition is the only thing we can trust to hold our government to a hopefully high standard?

No. What I meant was that a strong Opposition makes for a strong government. You can see that at the moment in the USA. The Democrats are not a strong opposition, so the Republicans are running riot. With the LNP in Australia having a lessened presence in the House, Labor is getting a pretty easy run. Consider that a football Grand Final is not played by the two teams on the bottom of the ladder.

[nomadpete]

Without a political party, the elected individuals are not distracted by leadership struggles. 

 

The members all read the proposals instead of their leader interpreting it for them. Then they vote on the issue. 

A bonus is that the financial backing gets more difficult for the vested influences.

[facthunter]

The Party determines policies, not the Leader. The party also selects and removes a Leader. It's a team deal with Party Members involved. A Government divided unto itself shall surely FAIL,UNLESS THE  Leader becomes a Dictator Like Putin or Trump (or a Theocracy like IRAN) and all hope is gone. Trumps agents are now Pushing the Concept that God installed Trump to do his Divine work. What hope have WE got???  Nev

[Grumpy Old Nasho]

Since the major parties always win government, and have done since 1901, why not just let them alternate every three years. Imagine the money we'd save by not having elections, and all the political fighting would disappear, relieving all the stress of wondering if they'll win government. Each of the majors only need to wait three years and they'd be back in again. 

 

Good idea? What do you think of it? 

[facthunter]

Unrealistic and we don't HAVE 2 Major parties.

          Libs, the old UAP of Menzies, is nearly out of the game, with no one but themselves to Blame. Their "UNHOLY" Alliance with the Nats was there for one Purpose only. To Keep Labor Out and THEY haven't had a DECENT Leader for Ages so the House of cards. Predictably with No forward looking policies. fell over. Most of the Good (particularly) female and the Talented has Left the sinking ship because it's a " Mates of Mates" show.  Frazer resigned saying it bore NO resemblance to the Party He Knew and I can Understand that, completely. True Blue Followers Must be devastated. Howard Abott Morrison and Dutton Played their Part in it's ultimate demise. Nev

[Grumpy Old Nasho]

So we could see One Nation in opposition then? It'd be a welcome change.

[willedoo]

In Queensland the Labor government brought about the abolition of the upper house in 1922 because it was blocking their legislation. One of the Labor MPs went on to be Lieutenant-Governor, then appointed fifteen Labor people to the upper house who then had a majority to vote to disband it. The problem is, once it's gone, no government wants to have it back as they have a free run for passing legislation if they have a majority government. On the bright side, if numbers are close between government and opposition, the government members will make sure they show up to parliament. Sometimes if one is crook and can't be there for a crucial vote they will do a pair arrangement.

 

On the subject of the LNP amalgamation in Queensland, it's the opposite of what a federal amalgamation would look like. In Queensland, the Nationals were always the bigger party of the two and even governed alone without the Libs for six years. One aspect of the amalgamation was to do away with three cornered contests. With the federal Libs being the much bigger party, I doubt the federal Nats would be too keen on amalgamation. I think Pauline and Co. would be happy to see a federal amalgamated LNP as it would possibly deliver them a bigger slice of the vote on the right.

[willedoo]

Antony Green in his election blog has listed the seats he thinks ON would have a chance based on the three-candidate preferred result in 2025. It doesn't appear to give them any seats, but he said if they poll 25% at the next election they will sweep up seats all across regional and rural Australia, mainly at the expense of the Nats and Libs. The Farrer byelection will be a big one for them. Some polls have them leading the primary vote but the preferences will make it hard for them. If they do win it, it will have a big momentum value for ON.

 

https://antonygreen.com.au/one-nations-poll-surge-the-first-25-seats-to-watch/

[willedoo]

27 minutes ago, Grumpy Old Nasho said:

So we could see One Nation in opposition then? It'd be a welcome change.

That would be interesting. Problem is they'd need a party leader in the lower house. Barnaby is the only lower house member via defection, but he'd have to win the seat again under ON to be there. There was some talk of him running for a senate seat but I don't know what that was about. Early days yet, I guess they'll figure out a battle plan depending on their support as time moves closer to the election. They've always been relatvely strong here in Queensland but are more so lately. A lot of people joining the party, particularly younger people. They appeal in country areas, but where Labor will have to be careful is that a lot of working class, so-called little Aussie battlers are swinging to them. They were always Labor's domain but Labor's losing them. Not enough to harm Labor yet, but it's no time for them gloat; they need to watch their base.

Edited 6 hours ago by willedoo

[nomadpete]

3 hours ago, facthunter said:

A Government divided unto itself shall surely FAIL

True words indeed.

 

As OME pointed out, we rely on a majority party to be in power, and a minority party in opposition 'to keep the barstewards honest'. 

 

By definition that is a government divided.

 

Dispense with the party and party leaders. The PM can be chosen by a majority vote from the floor.

 

As Nev points out, we are heading toward a one party system. This is not a good path either.

In theory, when a party decides a policy, it should be voted by secret ballot in a caucus meeting. But I think there is bullying going on in this process. I do not believe it is really democratic.

If a policy is good, then both parties would approve and if the process was transparent, the electorate would see the reasoning behind it. 

 

At present clear policy information is not freely accessible, unless we really dig for it. Have you read the official party websites? They all sound the same, with all the right vague catchwords. 

 

[willedoo]

Pete, I haven't read the constitution in a long time but from memory it was designed the way you describe, representation by elected members rather than a party system. I don't think there's much in it at all about parties. Most of what we do in parliament is by  convention and not by constitutional rule. As an example, there's nothing in the constitution to stop the Labor party winning an election and nominating Angus Taylor as PM. A lot of the constitution is about day to day rules for pollies.

[willedoo]

I bought a copy of it back when Howard had the republic referendum to compare the proposed changes.

[Grumpy Old Nasho]

The Constitution and the major parties are in question now because of their excessive international stance on everything. Australia has become a poor second. Islam seems to be an important priority for some strange reason. Traditional Aussie bushies view it as laughable, but serious, and we're coming closer together.

 

 

 

 

Edited 4 hours ago by Grumpy Old Nasho

[willedoo]

I can understand why young people are turning away from the major parties. Over time Australia has become a country where a whole generation of young Australians will never be able to own their own home. It doesn't matter how hard they work and save, it gets them nowhere. A lot of people make excuses and give various reasons why the country is like that, but the fact remains that it degenerated to this under the stewardship of one of the major parties or the other. Whether or not they are totally to blame, they have that job and the buck has to stop with them and they carry some responsibility for letting it happen.

[facthunter]

I think we are a long way from a One Party system and that is the last thing anyone should wish for but there should be a decency and common Purpose limit to the sabotage some opposition antics can be. T Abott cost this Country Billions and set us back years when He instructed  Malcolm Turnbull to "Destroy the Internet". We are still reeling from the effects of that One. Mate of Pell and Murdock and using Credlin for his Brain and absolute  zero for Scientific Know How. People like HIM are scary  IGNORANT. Nev

[octave]

3 minutes ago, facthunter said:

T Abott cost this Country Billions and set us back years when He instructed  Malcolm Turnbull to "Destroy the Internet"

I well remember Abbott saying this:

 

"Abbott claimed that the vast majority of Australians did not need, nor want to pay for, the high-speed fibre network proposed by Labor, suggesting it was simply a tool to allow people to watch movies."

 

In 2020 during Covid fast internet was the saviour of the economy and many, many workers, including me.   Today, many people work either full or partially from home, freeing up roads and public transportation and improving people's working lives.  

[facthunter]

 For generations in  Europe People can NEVER own their Own home and cope with it fine. Because of John Howard's Push for Investment in Houses, which are Not productive, we now have Overcapitalised and Have some of the Biggest Houses in the entire world. IT did Not have to be that way. Steps are being taken that will gradually change that but if it Happened quickly it would not be the desired effect without consequences. Nev