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 5 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.