Parliament Would Be Better If We Banned Election Campaigns And Appointed People Randomly For Three Years
Turnbull said something that I agree with.
Now, as you know, I’m no fan of Turnbull’s. Mainly because he reminds me of an assistant principal who used to imply privately that any unpopular decision was the principal’s fault and, if it were up to him, he wouldn’t be implementing that particular measure.
However, when Turnbull said that the public was sick of the way politics has operated over the past few years, I had to agree. Certainly, I’m ready to start talking about what we should be doing and not what should have been done. When we bring up what the various parties have done in the past, we’re talking about different leaders, and, for the most part, a different group of politicians.
Yes, I thought, let’s get back to discussing the merits of individual ideas and not worrying about where the idea has originated.
Turnbull’s stolen Shorten’s innovation and science focus. Excellent! Hopefully, Bill will come up with a few more good ideas that he can steal. Better than relying on the Abbott regime’s ideas.
Actually, did they actually have an idea?
Mm, yes, they “stopped”, they “got rid of”, they “eliminated”, but I’m struggling to actually come up with an idea they had while in government.
But rather than embrace Turnbull’s positivity, we find the same predictable carping. The same negativity.
Yep, it seems that the Liberals just can’t help themselves.
Apart from the whinge from Kevin Andrews, who felt that he should have kept Defence for the good of the country, we have Tony Abbott. Tony felt it necessary to tell everyone that Scott Morrison had misled the Australian people. Apparently, neither Bishop nor Morrison warned Tony about the possible leadership challenge.
What was it Mr Abbott said in his concession speech? Ah yes:
“My pledge today is to make this change as easy as I can. There will be no wrecking, no undermining, and no sniping.”
Just an assertion that my trusty colleagues are liars. Well, I guess one has to set the record straight. Mr Abbott had no warning about the potential leadership challenge.
Apart from the ones printed in the newspaper a day or so before. Oh, that’s right – that was just insider gossip and he wasn’t going to play those games.
As one British politician remarked, “No, my boy, those people are the Opposition, When I said ‘the enemy can be vicious’, I meant the people on this side of the chamber!”
Like what we do at The AIMN?
You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.
Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!
24 comments
Login here Register here-
mark delmege -
Paddy Forsayeth -
Steve Laing -
kerri -
Kaye Lee -
Winston -
jim -
RosemaryJ36 -
Anomander -
stephengb2014 -
diannaart -
kizhmet -
Neil of Sydney -
Kaye Lee -
Kaye Lee -
John Fraser -
mark delmege -
mark delmege -
mmc1949 -
corvus boreus -
Möbius Ecko -
Neil of Sydney -
keerti -
Arthur Baker
Return to home pageEver wondered why our news is so shite, our leaders so spineless, No it’s not a parallel universe they are living in – it is because we live in a vassal state. There is no Freedom of thought for these ‘leaders/followers or from the media/liars – it is a myth. And nothing will change anytime soon. Turnbull is as much a captured freak as Abbott or Shorten or even for that matter Di Natale. It’s the only game in town. Aspirations or notions otherwise are sheer fantasy.
If you want to know what is happening in the world ignore, them ignore them all – they are all captured specimens living in a glass void. That’s how it is folks. That’s reality.
Sometimes a dictionary definition is useful.
Vassal
noun
1.
(in the feudal system) a person granted the use of land, in return for rendering homage, fealty, and usually military service or its equivalent to a lord or other superior; feudal tenant.
2.
a person holding some similar relation to a superior; a subject, subordinate, follower, or retainer.
3.
a servant or slave.
Perhaps we might have a modification of party politics. If I understand the constitution correctly it is unlawful for anyone to coerce the vote of a member of Parliament. Isn’t that what party whips are for ? We have s system which disallows the free expression of opinion from and alternative voting to the stated party line. Why bother with backbenchers? Their abolition would save a great deal of money. A compromise may be that there are political parties which preselect candidates so you have a good idea of what the candidate stands for but when elected the party, at least formally, cannot force the MP,s vote in the parliament. I can see that Party politics gives us a degree of stability and predictability but the system need some fundamental reform.
Most organisations can run very successfully without “sides”, so why do we believe that this is necessary for government? Parties encourage members to stop thinking and simply act because “loyalty”. Its BS. Whilst I agree that there will naturally be groupings of similar thinking people (as there are in any organisation), if the allegiance of all MPs was to firstly the electorate, rather than to their party, I’m sure they could work better together to ensure legislation was passed (particularly if we recognised this and voted for those types of candidates). MPs need to be more accountable, and they all need to contribute. It is possible without too much change.
Abbott has had since February to expect a challenge? I also picked up from his good riddance speech the comment that he had “never leaked or backgrounded”. Yeah right! How do you know when Abbott is lying? When his lips………..
And as for political representation? Karl Stefanovic was close to the mark when he asked do we, the people, matter? Every time SSM or the Environment comes up it is all about the MPs beliefs and principals. As if we needed any more evidence of how out of touch the political class is, now we have Turnbull telling us he hasn’t heard the screaming majority view on Same Sex Marriage and needs to ask us again?
The addiction to polling and the perpetual testing of the waters by leaking concepts, not to mention the more structured think tanks and focus groups? I dream of a day where your local member will send you a survey or call you for your opinions or pop by a local meeting to converse with the people they allegedly represent instead of contacting you via Christmas Calendars and pre election “hey remember me’s”.
I get the strong impression some of the lesser MPs also feel that voter beliefs are their duty to represent rather than their own. But of course the standard has been set under Abbott to keep everything a secret because not only are our opinions not required they are actively suppressed by “mushroom” philosophy! You know I must be a mushroom because………
Backbenchers are free to cross the floor but it is political suicide. Judi Moylan was a Liberal MP that I respected but she was punished for having a conscience.
The only reason for having parties is to access the huge fund of political donations to pay for advertising. If we banned political advertising there is no need for parties anymore. The Electoral Commission could produce a booklet/online site prior to an election where all candidates can outline their policies. The ABC could provide free air time for debates or interviews. Imagine if MPs had to get elected on their merit rather than their party allegiance. At least half of the current parliament could not possibly have got there without the name of a party with its traditional adherents to rely on.
Floored as he is; one must give credence to Tony Abbotts loyalty to some members of his party.I hope he retires and starts reading some good self help books.The same can’t be said for Bronwyn Bishop. What a despicable character she is.
I get a very strong felling that Abbott never made any speeches himself but was made by a Pete Credlin I would also suspect their relation ship was more than just plutonic
Jim – I don’t always agree withou but this time I do!
And Kaye – you are so right about the funding for political advertising. Brazil has taken the first step!
Where our politics fails us is the undue influence of money.
The major parties have turned the process into a giant campaign that more resembles the US by the day, with road shows, rallies with groups of cheering faithful, elaborate fund-raising dinners, paid access to members, buses, trucks, billboards, TV and radio ads, social media, doorknocks, robocalls, mass media appearances, and thousands upon thousands of posters.
This effectively precludes the independent candidates and the smaller parties, who can’t match their levels of funding, and prevents them being able to make any headway against the scale of resources available to the major parties, the onslaught of images and the flood of information.
Campaigns of this scale also require full-time resources to manage and cost millions of dollars to stage. And the only way you get that kind of money is to be wealthy (like Clive) or through cashed-up sponsors, who expect favours in return for their investment.
And therein lies the nub of the problem, because policies and decisions now made by governments are geared toward paying back the supporters, rather than for the good of the country or the benefit of the voters, which debases and severely undermines our democracy.
Tony Abbott should never have been elected as an MP let alone the leader of a party to become a Prime Minister.
When you look at his history of bully boy tactics, his refusal to accept the blame for anything, his use of money and power to avoid accountability, and lastly his behaviour toward women in particilar his behaviour toward Julia Gillard, must have told his collegues that this man was a problem if not mentally deranged.
Then after his coming to power as a Prime Minister his party members must have known that this man is possibly not all there, crikey the general public knew before he became leader of the Liberal party!
So what does that tell you about his supporters then and over the last two years and even now after he was ousted.
If they could not recognise an incompetant bully boy with delussions of grandure, what makes them qualified to run the country?
And I note whilst Abbott is staying on as an MP on the back bencher – why is he giving press conferences whilst surfing, and not in Canberra doing his job as an elected representative?
Sniping at his old mates – but not face to face note, bullies never face to face people when they are not surrounded by other bullies.
Without a doubt the nastiest piece of work that I have ever seen, and I’ve seen some arseholes over the last 60 years.
Abbott; either he’s a power hungry sociopath.
Or, he’s a puppet led by the strings of Peta Credlin.
The usual characteristics of a narcissist do not include being controlled by someone else – part of the territory, plus he has demonstrated constant foot-in-mouth disease whenever within speaking distance of a woman. How, he managed to marry and procreated…. sorry wandering off my primary point.
While no fan of Credlin, I continue to believe she is more a scapegoat than puppeteer – as Abbott noted himself in a rare display of insight – would his Chief of Staff been blamed for so much had the first name been Peter? Even if they did bump uglies together – since when has that resulted in men making decisions in favour of women? Many powerful men believe their sexual activities are a result of how wonderful they believe they are – women can’t resist them.
@ Dianna – it is a quesiton to which we will never know the answer. I suspect Peter Credlin would, at worst, have a reputation for loyalty.
One can hope Turnbull continues to steal ALP’s ideas – will certainly keep Labor on their toes and force them to “up their game”. No harm there …
Backbenchers are free to cross the floor but it is political suicide
Labor Party MP’s are not allowed to cross the floor
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/the-lost-art-of-crossing-the-floor/2006/08/11/1154803093733.html
And of the 245 MPs who crossed the floor during the 54 years, only 28 were from the Labor Party. The reason is that Labor MPs are bound by a formal party pledge to support the collective decisions of their parliamentary caucus. To flout the pledge is to risk expulsion from the party. The last MP to ignore such warnings was Western Australia’s Graeme Campbell. He lost his ALP endorsement in 1995, and his seat, as an independent, in the House of Representatives in 1998.
I must fess up Neil. The last few times you posted that comment it was me who deleted it. I just didn’t feel like listening to you today. Sorry. You make a valid point. Irrelevant,,,,but valid.
Oh beaut. Our parliament wants to go to war with itself.
“NSW crossbencher David Leyonhjelm branded Mr Brough’s threats a “brain fart”, warning that the crossbench would go to war against the government if its existence was threatened – most likely in a deal between the Coalition and the Greens to abolish the group voting ticket.”
Thank dog for Qld conservative pollies..
If it wasn’t for the likes of Dutton, Brough, Brandis, Christensen everyone would still be laughing at Trump.
Even little Wyatt Roy is good for a little chuckle.
posted from London, England.
Poor old “Niel of Sydney”, such venom …………. long after the master of venomous politics has left the Chamber and the dark age of politics in Australia is over.
Kaye Lee its great to see Bolt et al eating each other ….. maybe “Neil” will be the dessert.
Abbott is a throwback …. it just took longer than was reasonable.
likewise Graeme Campbell
Kaye, I made mention here a little while ago of my thought that it would be a good idea for the AEC to include space for all candidates to say something about themselves. I finally got around to making the suggestion. See correspondence below.
Perhaps someone with more clout than me could get through to sharper knife in the AEC knife box. Not a lot of hope for educating the electorate from this sorry response.
—–Original Message—–
Sent: Tuesday, 1 September 2015 8:08 PM
To: INFO
Subject: [QUESTION]
General enquiry from the AEC website.
Not an enquiry, a suggestion … In this electronic age and where advertising is expensive (to the point of being almost prohibitive) and where ways and places to advertise are so diverse as to be almost impossible to reach everyone, it’s time the AEC website gave more information about candidates than their party, occupation and contact details. I suggest every candidate be given (free) a set amount of space on the AEC website where they can sell themselves in whatever way they like, within the bounds of truth, civility and good taste, including the ability to link out to their web site, be it a facebook page, a free word press blog or a fully fledged mainstream party extravaganza. It would be the one place where every voter could go, knowing they would get some details about their candidate. The provision of information by candidates should be compulsory … if they can’t tell voters about themselves on a free platform then they have no business standing for election.
From: info@aec.gov.au
Subject: RE: [QUESTION]
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 05:43:35 +0000
Thank you for your enquiry. You will find basic information on each candidate available at or website, as captured on the candidates nomination form. This includes contact details and website addresses where candidates have chosen to provide them. It is not a requirement of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 that candidates provide information on their policies on their nomination form, and as we are a politically neutral organisation, we would not enter into this sphere.
There are websites set up for various elections which provide the sort of information you are looking for. I’m not sure if someone has created one for the canning by-election, being that it only affects one division, but if you search the internet, you may find something. There is also the added issue that some candidates or parties do not advise voters of their main policies until close to polling day.
Regards
Sally Bolton | Public Enquiries
Education & Communications Branch
Australian Electoral Commission
Canberra ACT
I actually support the limited preferencing option in the proposed amendments to Senate ballot procedures put forward by the Coalition (changes that Leyonhjelm wants a ‘war’ to oppose).
Although this has been hypothesised as likely being beneficial to the major parties, it seems to me to be method whereby I, as a voter, can more clearly and accurately state my wishes for the upper house on election day, and thus a better form of electoral democracy.
With the current ‘one or all’ system, I have the choice of either putting my faith entirely in the wisdom of a single bloc, or numbering one to three hundred and five, and wading into the mire of obscure and strangely named micro-parties, many of which exist purely for the purposes of preferencing shell-games.
I would prefer a middle option.
You make a valid point. Irrelevant,,,,but valid.
And out of date. It may have been the case in the past that only Labor destroyed the careers of those who crossed the floor on them and have it as a pledge, but as is everything with the underhanded and deceitful Liberals, today if you cross the floor on them your career is destroyed.
So it may not be implicit in a pledge or the Party constitution, it is understood that to cross the floor is doom in the Liberal Party. Another Liberal Party tenet Howard destroyed and that would have Menzies rolling in his grave.
You may rightfully go on about Abbott as a failure, and he was a fulgurous one, but by far the greatest failure in Liberal Party history is Howard. Not in the number of policy and facts terms, that belongs to McMahon and Abbott, but definitely in moral, honesty and integrity terms.
You may rightfully go on about Abbott as a failure
Why??
Did Abbott drown 1,200 people that we know of by encouraging them to come here by boat? No labor did that.
Did Abbott trash the budget? No Labor did that.
Did Abbott destroy the car industry? No Labor did that.
Did Abbott lock up 2,000 kids? No Labor did that.
Did Abbott trash the unemployment rate. No Labor did that.
Abbott did not trash anything like Rudd/Gillard did.
Adding a meritocratic approach to a non-party system would lead to more intelligent voting.At present there is no requirement for the population to be informed in any way about issues. The liberal party is adept at manipulating the vote of the haters (those who don’t understand anything about refugees, but have a rockhard opinion about them for example).
Democrasy as it is is not democratic at all.
If we appointed members randomly, that would mean my two brothers-in-law might get a chance. Australia needs them like it needs a hole in the head, and must avoid that eventuality at all costs.