Julia's Reign

[barbarian]

I tend to agree with Richo, although I think we are a very long way off the state that America is now in. Where the Liberals are obstructionist on a few crucial issues, the Republicans are obstructionist on all issues. For christ sake they blocked a small medical grant for 9/11 firefighters because it slightly raised the taxes on the offshore bank accounts of major corporations. 9/11 firefighters FFS.

I think the parties still agree on a lot more than they disagree. The media talk heaps more about the areas of conflict than the areas of congruence which gives the appearance the parties are diametrically opposed on everything. I do agree though that Abbott is in danger of pushing it a bit too far with his confrontational style, basically attributing everything that goes wrong ever to Labor policy.

 

[Ruggo]

Abbott won't get such an easy ride in this parliament. He will crumble and drag the Coalition down with him. He did a good job to get them into this position but he is not the person to take them to the next level. Quite frankly, he is a political time bomb.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

I think it's unfortunate that the partisan divide in Australia appears only to be widening. I understand the politics of Abbott's obstructionism -- and on if I was advising him on the politics, I'd tell him to do what he's doing -- but in terms of the long-term health of Australian democracy, it's bad. Of course, Labor would have done nothing different if the shoe was on the other foot, so I'm not blaming Abbott per se. It is very concerning to me, however, that on issues like the ETS, one entire half of politics simply won't come to the party. The Liberals have learned from the successes of the Republicans in America but it's like not being able to see the forest for the trees. Obsessing about tactical victories precludes strategies that lead to good governance.

I, for one, don't want to see our government become any more American in style. Watching that country grind itself deeper into the muck while wracked by political paralysis is a sad to behold. Like it or not, the Rudd government did do a very good job steering our country through the GFC. Do we really want to be as incapable of meeting such challenges in the future as the Americans now are?

Our parliamentary system is a lot more based around party discipline here. In the US, Dems or Repubs often vote against the party leaderships wishes. When that happens here, the party whips are usually pretty savage. It's also got a lot to do with the executive being part of the parliament too.

The US has a tonne of problems and part of it is getting the politicians to level with the American people and say that they are out of money and that some things are going to have to be cut back. They've fiddled around for the last three years (more like 8 really) and haven't really reformed anything. Sometimes you have to accept that some things aren't working, cut your losses and do it another way. Too many politicians over there aren't honest enough to do that. They've also got a bloke as president who is clearly out of his depth.

 

[Richo]

Scotty, I'd never suggest the Liberals are solely to blame. I actually worked for Labor in 2007 and not many people I know are more pissed at the way Labor has used government. I'm not really in a position to argue the detail on passing the stimulus since I was overseas at the time and not following the minutiae. Incidentally, what I was doing was working in Canadian politics... and watching that country experience huge job losses in part because the Conservative government refused to act with any kind of stimulus (which they did, eventually and without enough substance). I suppose that's a roundabout way of saying that it's possible the Rudd stimulus could have been smaller, although I think you'd find as many who'd say half would have been too small, but it worked and, with good management going forward, we should be able to get back into a strong position relatively quickly.

TBH, I'm well aware of the differences in our political systems and I think you mostly get it right about the need for significant change. The problem is whether the political system there is actually capable of instituting that change.

Which gets to my larger point -- I don't think Australia is months away from turning into the United States, but there is a tendency here to shift towards an American style of politics: partisan, combative, media-centric, etc. that doesn't do our country any favours. I'd rather see whichever side is in opposition playing a constructive part in governance. That means holding the government to account and flat-out opposing when necessary, but it doesn't mean gumming up the works, playing fast and loose with facts, or trying to bring every issue down to the lowest common denominator.

 

[Scotty]

Which gets to my larger point -- I don't think Australia is months away from turning into the United States, but there is a tendency here to shift towards an American style of politics: partisan, combative, media-centric, etc. that doesn't do our country any favours. I'd rather see whichever side is in opposition playing a constructive part in governance.

I agree with this bit Richo, but in reality the vast majority of bills are passed without any issue.

As for media-centric politics, my feeling is that Rudd took this to the next level in this country. Lots of 6pm sound bites and a lot of talking without saying anything. Politicians from both sides are now following this. (Although focus groups are telling Gillard to distance herself a bit from this style.)

I think we would be in a better position both politically and financially if it was Tanner of Ferguson that were the leaders of the Labor party in 07 rather than Rudd. It would also have helped if Howard had stepped aside for Costello.

 

[Bowside]

I really hope that Australian politics does not move in the same direction as the US. This is the why I often am critical of News Limited media, because I think they fuel a kind of populist partisanism, which is counter productive.

However, at the end of the day I dont think we really have much to worry about as most Australians hold similar political views, evident by the fact that although im a Labor man, I agree with a lot of what Scotty and TBH say.

The most important element of successful governance is common sense.

 

[Scotty]

4 year terms and non compulsory voting would help our governments a lot, IMO. More time to implement changes and less pandering to the masses in leading up to the election.

 

[Bowside]

I dont agree with non compulsory voting. It will just lead to more money being spent trying to get people to vote. Soon enough it will be more about the person and less about the party and the policy.

It would also favour the liberals, as young people dont always sort there shit out in time, and they tend to vote Labor.

 

[cyclopath]

I think the preference system needs looking at.
I think people should be able to list their own, but I wonder how many people really know, in each electorate, how their preferences are being distributed. Too many sneaky deals for mine.
And I agree with non compulsory voting, and some way of identifying those who don't, so we can tell them to STFU when they complain about something, when they chose to have no part in the process.

 

[barbarian]

Nah I like our system the way it is. Yeah we have plenty of fucktards who get a vote but there is no guarantee non-compulsorary voting will change the distribution of idoiots:smart people on polling day. For example there are plenty of old people who have voted Liberal or Labor in every election since 1932, and will continue to do so until the day they die even if Tony Abbott starts wearing a beret and making people call him Comrade. In my view they are just as damaging to the election as the yahoo who just comes in and votes for the sex party or draws a dick on the ballot.

 

[cyclopath]

Good points, barbarian, but I still think there is plenty of detritus that could be weeded out!!
While I waited to vote this year, in a pretty long queue, some knob behind me, with overly large sunnies, a Bieber hairdo and too small jeans loudly proclaimed to the whole line it would be better to just not vote and cop the fine, 'cos it would be less than the parking fine he would probably get waiting in this line while he was parked in a no-stopping zone...despite the fact I managed to park legally about 50 m away, as could he have.
Disenfranchising such peanuts is a community service. As would be a vasectomy, but I was in a hurry that day!

 

[chief]

I'll say this about our voting system.

People voted for the Sex Party at this election, a lot of students for example, who are political idiots. They voted for them simply because of the "sex" part of the name, these voters had no clue what they stood for. The sex party is not homophobic, but a lot of the voters were indeed or aren't willing to embrace same sex marriage which is the Australian Sex Party's main agenda I believe. However just as well for the sex party, because they removed a few thousand idiots votes.

Also on the other hand we have a lot of trendy young students, who think they are so cool, and they vote for a leader and not the party and the party's policy. A lot of the young demographic would have had probably agreed with the Coalition's policy on say economics and education. But would have voted for the ALP because Gillard has not said controversial things in the past on let's say abortion, and woman's virginity.

Dare I say it, politics with the latest social networking and media has become a farce, and sadly nothing can and will be done about it, removing compulsory voting however will improve it.

 

[barbarian]

Also on the other hand we have a lot of trendy young students, who think they are so cool, and they vote for a leader and not the party and the party's policy. A lot of the young demographic would have had probably agreed with the Coalition's policy on say economics and education. But would have voted for the ALP because Gillard has not said controversial things in the past on let's say abortion, and woman's virginity.

I don't think young people are alone in doing that. I would dare say a high proportion of the population would say they voted for Gillard or Abbott before they said they voted Labor or Liberal or anyone running for their seat. I think young people are more inclined to vote Labor certainly, and image has a bit to do with that (the Libs are seen as the party of old men, which is true in certain instances), but to say its only because of personality sells a lot of people short IMO.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

As someone who doesn't really believe in compulsory anything, I struggle with compulsory voting. I would vote anyway, but I'm not in favour making people do it. It's pretty far down the list of affronts to our civil liberties though.

As far as the preferential system goes, I don't mind it too much, especially in the lower house. In the upper house, I'm not so convinced, but it's not a show stopper. Preference deals shit me, but you don't have to vote that way if you don't want to.

 

[Scotty]

I dont agree with non compulsory voting. It will just lead to more money being spent trying to get people to vote. Soon enough it will be more about the person and less about the party and the policy.

It would also favour the liberals, as young people dont always sort there shit out in time, and they tend to vote Labor.

This is possible. However it says a lot about Labor voters and how Labor attracts them. (The more apathetic you are, the more you are likely to vote for Labor? Does this mean people only vote for them when they are too lazy to really look at their policies?)

 

[DPK]

I like compuslory voting because:

• It makes governments create policies for everyone, not just sections of society they think will vote.
• It ensures it's easy for people who want to vote to be able to easily i.e. not scheduling voting hours on a monday morning in working hours

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Those are good points Konze, especially the one about voting hours. I think it's stroke of genius that our elections are always on Saturdays.

 

[Richo]

I go back and forth about compulsory voting but at the end of the day, I think it ensures a basic level of civic engagement and is not a large price to pay to be part of a functioning, fair and open democracy.

Where I think reform is needed is on the money side of politics. Ban all corporate and union donations, cap personal donations, and cap the amount of money that parties can spend, with similarly tough rules on third party advertising as well. I suspect we'd see a little more substance and a bit less froth, as well as a system far less beholden to special interests.

 

[Scotty]

I like compuslory voting because:

• It makes governments create policies for everyone, not just sections of society they think will vote.
• It ensures it's easy for people who want to vote to be able to easily i.e. not scheduling voting hours on a monday morning in working hours

That goes both ways though, doesn't it. (ie cash handouts, middle class welfare etc)

 

[Richo]

Yep. One of the problems is that it forces parties to try to buy the votes of the least interested in the handful of marginals.