Comments on: Fixing Politics: in the wake of the 2020 Summit

By: Narelle

Narelle — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Pardon my ignorance: what/who are the IPA?

By: Neil Bishop

Neil Bishop — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

We need to break the cycle of gross dependence on government. Three basic things need to happen: 1. We need smaller government focussed on doing what government(s) should be doing (law & order, defence, education). 2. We should probably abolish the states. 3. Only taxpayers/those who have made contributions should be allowed to vote. After all, why should the freeloaders of society be given any say in the running of the country?

By: Ben

Ben — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

IPA - India Pale Ale

Characteristically bitter, with a heavily florid nose. When shaken from comfortable resting place, tends to fizz a bit, but not really spectacularly.

Used sensibly, can provide a refreshing, cleansing sensation on the palate, especially in counterpoint to more substantial fare. Traditional accompaniments include the intensively gas-producing pickled onion and similar.

Overindulgence in IPA can lead to nausea, vomiting, antisocial behaviour, unreasonable outbursts (see pickled onions, above), headaches and very fuzzy thinking.

By: Richard McGuire

Richard McGuire — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Compulsory voting should definately stay. I would rather see parties and candidates focus their efforts on policy, than spend time and money cajoling people to get out and vote. How about giving optional preferential voting a go in federal polls. It works ok in QLD. QLD got it thanks to post Fitzgerald reforms. It means voters are no longer captives of the major political parties. Imagine the message it would send to the major parties if enough people decided to exhaust their vote. Surely a more potent message, than if a large percentage of voters simply failed to turn up and vote.

By: Lucy

Lucy — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

It’s nice to see you occasionally taking the opportunity to transcend the day-to-day political grind. I am sympathetic to the libertarian case against compulsory voting (although I don’t believe its international rarity is a compelling argument against it); if political expression is truly free, shouldn’t that also include the freedom to stay the hell away from the ballot box without writing a pro forma “my goldfish died” excuse every couple of years? But practically speaking I am inclined to think it would be a nightmare. Not because compulsory voting necessarily advantages Labor - the Howard government was plenty good at appealing to low-motivation, low-information voters - but because our political culture is already interest-groupy enough without the added need to mobilise people to vote.

By: Richard McGuire

Richard McGuire — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Narelle asks, what/who are the IPA?. Narelle, IPA stands for Institute of Public Affairs. Impressive sounding title isn’t it. Maybe the following would sum up what they’re about, - a conservative - right wing - free market - libertarian - industry funded - think tank. Oh and they’re also into climate change denial. Much of the commentariat in this country gets their inspiration from this august organization.

By: Eric Smith

Eric Smith — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Had I been at the summit, I would have argued for compulsory voting at local government elections. And I might have been convinced that states are pointless and should be abolished.
Does this count?

By: garyb

garyb — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

consider a publication "The Wisdom of crowds" by james Surowiecki...in it the premise that a diverse well meaning group can produce better more successful outcomes that (so-called) experts or self selected elites.
Group think with people with similar experiences and orthodoxies has demonstrated spectacular failures over many years. All recent innovations are the result of diverse cross disciplinary teams.
the summit may well have been inspired thinking to trust untrained people who have the best interests of the country at heart, as such they will 'think outside the box', not be contrained by orthodoxy or historical precedent. in short, the basis of a 21st century democracy where the strength of the idea is more important than the vested interests who have entrenched positions.

to be able to trust the collective decision is simpler than blaming the traditional single point of power, as the value of expertise is no longer the single determining factor.

the perception of i know, those others don't, discounts the diverse points of view to be considered in making an accepted decision and implementing it.
we can no longer have extremes of politics swinging every two election cycles...21st century demands better consistency and better community building than that
it looks like the 2020 summit may just about have it as best as it can be.
not 'right' , not 'wrong'...but acceptable to all players. so we can all move on together.

By: Kevin Charles Herbert

Kevin Charles Herbert — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Bernard: political systems are specifically designed to have difficultly coping with their current systems.....that's the dynamic that democratic politics promotes. In the context of your discussion, compulsory voting is simply a red herring. Also you fail to mention the constitutional hurdles to structural change.

You're piece is baffling to say the least.

By: Dick

Dick — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

It may be that Australians look too much to government to solve their problems, as Keane concludes from observing the 2020 summit.

However, I think there is another partial explanation. If you get a group of people together to draw up some proposals to bring about improvements, they will need some sort of agency to implement them. Government already exists, it deals with policies and policy implementation as its daily business, and it is the easy choice of agency to take action. Not nearly as easy, for instance, for the summiteers to decide something needs to be done and then form themselves into an action group to do it. Not necessarily easy, either, to find existing organisations or companies to take the actions, unless they might be profit-making.

The other side to this coin is that maybe in such a context that is looking to a general improvement, we direct out thoughts to government as the natural agency for the big picture stuff. For instance, we tend to think of business as causing problems rather than solving them, and expect that it will behave better only if forced by government. We don't really have another way of disciplining business.

By: Justin

Justin — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

I think compulsory voting should be abolished. Why force someone to vote if they don’t have a foggy idea who they’re voting for? Half of the people I’ve spoken to recently don’t even know who our premier is.