What to do about our loss of confidence in politics

Cross-posted from The Conversation:

Ruling is a consequence of professional politicking. Yet it has also created unmatched instability in modern Australian politics. Professionalisation of political operations has come to dominate the way major Australian political parties function, and diminishes government and opposition alike.

Tony Abbott sought to rule rather than govern, in much the same way that Kevin Rudd did after Labor was returned to power in 2007 – and both unravelled.

The blame for the state of modern politics lies not just with the politicians, but with journalists, commentators and voters as well. The political culture in Australia is sick and in need of treatment. The throwaway culture of consumerism has transferred into attitudes towards politicians. The selfishness of voters is only matched by politicians’ selfish grab for power. And journalists, while not entirely to blame for the way they cover politics, share the blame for the lack of focus on policy.

In our view, there are three relatively simple solutions to help improve the situation, and return politics to the art of governing rather than ruling:

  • tighter regulation of political parties;
  • recognition that Australia has outgrown the two-party system and must reform institutions to remake it; and
  • the need to institutionalise consultation within the law-making process.

Small targets

Australians are not happy with the state of politics and they largely blame politicians. And why not? We have record numbers of politicians who have been trained in the arts of politics through employment in central party, ministerial and MP offices.

The present generation of leaders has expert knowledge about communicating, campaigning and focus groups but little time or respect for the best traditions of government: the patient development of policy formulated with the assistance of a professional public service. So determined are they to present small targets to the electorate that concepts like platforms and mandates have almost dropped out of the vocabulary of politics.

Where the notion of a mandate does surface, it’s as a simplistic demand by government that the Senate pass its proposed bills, ignoring the check-and-balance role the second chamber was designed to provide. Too often, governments don’t even have the popular mandate for the legislation they demand gets passed, given the scant details on offer during election campaigns.

As South Australian senator Nick Xenophon told us for our book Battleground: Why the Liberal Party Shirtfronted Tony Abbott, the former prime minister had “a reverse mandate” for much of what was contained in his first budget, having explicitly ruled out during the campaign many of the cuts Treasurer Joe Hockey announced on budget night.

Malcolm Turnbull’s elevation to the prime ministership brought with it hopes of a raised tone of debate. AAP/Dan Himbrechts

The small-target strategy the Coalition adopted in 2013 while in opposition was a symptom of the professionalisation of politics, where the drive for government for the sake of power outweighs the purpose for achieving it. The result has been the opposite of what the professionals must have expected – a period of instability unparalleled since the first decade after Federation.

Politicians who understand how to count but who barely contribute a single idea to the public square are damaging voter perceptions of political leadership, increasing the degree of difficulty to break out of this situation and present substantive debates and policy ideas.

Malcolm Turnbull’s election to the prime ministership by his colleagues promises to rebalance this situation, but it is early days and such promises have been made before. We wait to see if the rhetoric will be matched by genuine changes.

Given that Turnbull’s elevation came as a result of the erosion of confidence in the system and the willingness to remove a leader when unpopularity pervades, even just over halfway into a first term, it is far from certain he won’t fall victim to the same panic and cutthroat assessment.

A lack of diversity

The permanent campaign is a concept American political scientists Norman Ornstein and Thomas Mann first wrote about 15 years ago. It involves the professionalisation of politics to a point where the political participants become involved in a permanent election campaign: using the media and the routines of politics to the direct goal of re-election, throughout an entire electoral term.

As a direct result of this professionalisation there is a loss of diversity in representatives, which narrows the intellectual outlook of the body politic, and in turn has removed the ideological drive of modern politics. This leaves voters with limited choices.

In Australia, the major parties are dominated by careerists, for whom election is the goal rather than the means of achieving goals. Retaining power has become more important than using incumbency to achieve goals. This has many impacts – on leadership theory, public policy and political stability, as we’ve seen recently with the removal of multiple prime ministers by their partyrooms.

Where once Liberals would accuse Labor of ideological and professional narrowness because of the large number of former union officials in their ranks, now both sides are heavily laden with ex-staffers. The Liberal Party rarely pre-selects small business owners – partly because of more rigid factional groupings and partly because those small business owners have stepped back from political engagement.

The recent pre-selection process for Joe Hockey’s seat of North Sydney saw a controversial move to truncate the selection process, which helped deliver the seat to Trent Zimmerman, a factional player for the moderates with only limited “real-world” experience.

Labor’s parliamentary ranks are dominated by ex-union officials such as Bill Shorten. AAP/Andrew Taylor

To the extent that we read about diversity in the backgrounds of MPs in their parliamentary biographies, such career markers have been strategically embarked on for the purpose of a future tilt at politics; for appearance rather than life experience. Too many MPs with backgrounds in larger organisations have worked within the media or government affairs divisions, rather than at the heart of the business.

On the Labor side, while ex-union officials continue to dominate parliamentary ranks, alongside ex-staffers, they are career union officials rather than those who have moved from the factory floor into official roles and then into parliament.

The working-class diversity that once made up for the narrowness of union domination with Labor‘s ranks is no more. Isolated exceptions prove the rule.

Dominance of polling

The most concerning aspect of the professionalisation of politics is the disconnect it has facilitated between politicians and those who vote for them. Our leaders know too much about politics and not enough about life. Just because you can tear down a first-term prime minister doesn’t mean it is a good idea.

Did the Labor functionaries who removed Rudd stop to think about why a first-term prime minister had never been treated that way? Now Abbott has suffered the same fate.

For all the faults of the Abbott government – many of which were accentuated by the professionalisation of politics – we can’t be sure that Abbott’s faults in his two years in office wouldn’t have been corrected over time, as was the case with other prime ministers. Like Rudd before him, Abbott wasn’t afforded the opportunity to grow in the job.

Bob Hawke had a messy beginning; John Howard even moreso. Had either of these highly regarded former prime ministers been voted out of office by their colleagues so soon after becoming prime minister, their legacies would have been as unimpressive as Abbott’s will certainly be.

If you doubt this historical reality, consider Howard’s polling numbers just over three months out from the 1998 election. His Coalition‘s primary vote was at just 34%; Abbott’s government’s primary vote never fell below 35%. Howard’s net satisfaction rating had dipped to minus 31 – territory Abbott traversed only once, and had recovered from by the time he was deposed.

John Howard made an art of trailing in the polls until the time that it mattered. AAP/Dean Lewins

While Abbott was wrong to blame the proliferation of polls, the media and white-anting as the causes of his demise, they did play a role. The need to stay competitive in the polls is stronger now than it has ever been, and there are more polls than ever before.

During his 11 years in power, Howard made an art of trailing in the polls until the eve of elections, before narrowing the gap and – with the notable exception of the 2007 election – overtaking his rivals when it mattered.

The erosion of stability caused by professionalisation isn’t only the fault of politicians. The media culture in response to it and the cultural realities of modern society are also contributing factors. Journalism is more poll-driven than in the past, more informed by backgrounding and commentary because of the expense involved in chasing down genuine news.

On the supply side of political news, public comments from political leaders are so scripted and predictable that journalists compete to seek out their real thinking. They celebrate the “gaffes”, which American journalist Michael Kinsley defined as an accidental utterance of the truth, produced by politicians because they puncture the images that leaders and their advisers seek to project.

Even politicians resent this charade. Foreign Minister Julie Bishop provided an insight into this thinking when government talking points were leaked – she commented that this would save her the trouble of having to parrot them.

A throwaway media culture

Voters today are part of a consumer throwaway culture, which we argue has harmed the way we see our politicians. If leaders err, just replace them. This attitude is shared by their colleagues.

There must be more to the problem than what Abbott called a “febrile media culture”. When New Zealander John Key welcomed Turnbull in October 2015, he was meeting his fifth Australian prime minister. Other parliamentary systems – the UK and Germany – are enjoying periods of relative stability. So too was Canada, until conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper was defeated while trying to secure a fourth term in power.

These countries are not without their problems. But Australia’s problems seem to be rooted in systemic and cultural issues that we can do something about.

Governments know everything about what voters want, but seem unable to satisfy them. While the published polls have impacted on the political contest we see in the media, internal party research has decided what comes first. Where previously such research was used to inform how to sell policy scripts, or occasionally ward off policy moves that are patently out of touch with the electorate, today the research determines policy choices.

This shift is supposed to endear the political class to voters, but we see through many of the attempts to reflect our wishes rather than lead. It is a twist on the delegate and trustee representational theories.

Not long ago, political scientists wondered whether this “PR state” gave undue advantages to incumbent governments. The overflow of media advisers and access to resources seemed to offer incumbents powerful advantages against their political opponents.

Some sort of threshold was passed in the late 1990s, when the number of trained journalists working for governments surpassed the number working for newspapers. We realise now that journalists, even as their numbers declined, were tiring of being managed by their former colleagues turned media advisers and found ways to fight back – revelling in getting behind the spin and highlighting the re-announcements, backflips and backdowns. This leaves readers and viewers more cynical than they were to start with.

At the same time, as veteran political journalist Laurie Oakes has pointed out, journalists are remarkably reticent in defending the traditions of their own profession. Governments collect data and restrict access to immigration detention centres with ease. For a profession that loves to talk about itself, this is a remarkable omission.

Yet the Gillard government’s failed attempt to regulate newspapers shows the limits of politicians in using their institutional power. This in turn brings us back to the lack of trust, and therefore authority, that we place in our elected representatives.

The public needs to take its share of the blame. We’ve all watched the leadership speculation stories climb to the top of the most clicked-on stories of even the quality news sites. Journalists who seek to be well read – at a time when online data reveals all regarding how may readers journalists truly have – play to their readers’ preferences.

Canberra gossip (as Abbott was fond of calling it) serves as clickbait. During Abbott’s two years in office, stories with his chief-of-staff’s name in the title invariably sat at the top of the most-read articles on websites. Readers want to feel like they have been taken inside the political contest, and stories that achieve this but nonetheless focus on policy over politics lose reader interest.

It is the politicians who need to disarm in the contest with journalists and voters: get out from behind the consultants, spin doctors and minders and tell us what they think. It will be interesting to see how long Turnbull refuses to play the game of ruling measures in or out before they have been properly debated.

One of the reasons that parties felt obliged to take the seemingly radical step of removing two first-term prime ministers was that their own campaigns have convinced voters that prime ministers are no longer primus inter pares (first among equals). Instead, we expect this single figure to have solutions to the most minute of problems, and an opinion on everything from tax reform to football results.

This prime ministerial government can be successful, as it was under Howard, when co-ordination is smooth, but it also risks going awry when the prime minister cannot replicate that success. The same political actors who encouraged us to respect the power of the prime minister refused to do so when they had the opportunity to increase their own influence.

The most effective period of governing since Howard was during the hung parliament (2010–13), but voters didn’t reward the incumbent party. The capacity of oppositions to paint chaos as the way we see government operations is made easier in the news age we live in, and helped along by social media and the 24-hour news cycle. Abbott in opposition was a successful proponent of this approach, before himself falling victim to it.

Journalists are remarkably reticent in defending the traditions of their own profession. AAP/Lukas Coch

The way forward?

Enough complaining, though. We are not revolutionaries, but if leaders are unwilling to release themselves from the straitjacket that professionalisation has imposed on them then some parts of the system could be improved if the public really lost patience.

Other Westminster systems have been much more innovative than Australia in reform and adaptation. Australia is almost unique in lacking a bill of rights; New Zealand and the UK have remade their respective systems in quite different ways.

Constituitonal change is notoriously difficult in Australia. None of our suggestions necessarily require constitutional change, although such entrenchment could be useful. We offer three principles that would make the system more democratic and fair, and focus political parties on their underlying purpose of improving the lives of their constituents instead of occupying office.

Australian political parties have promoted increasingly complex governance standards for public and private organisations without applying these standards to their own organisations. There is only one passing mention of parties in the Australian Constitution, giving courts few opportunities to limit their activities.

Historically, Australian political parties have avoided court action to resolve internal disputes or to disadvantage the other party, to retain their unique status as neither entirely public nor private organisations. They justify some elements of their privileged legal status (such as their exemption from the Privacy Act) because of their public role.

Political parties are indeed unique actors, which join ordinary citizens with organisations whose power reaches into the highest decision-making organs of the state. On the other hand, exemption from the Commonwealth Freedom of Information Act is justified on the non-government status of parties. The Australian Law Reform Commission has long argued for removal of the parties’ exemption from the Privacy Act on the basis that “public confidence in the political process” requires all actors to be on the same legal footing.

To the extent that parties have been regulated, it has tended to be in their own interest – for example, registering party names to prevent competition. Not all regulation is desirable and there are always unintended consequences. Candidate selection varies a lot in Australia, but the system of primaries in the US enforced by state law is by no means a better system. Not that this truth has prevented Labor and the Nationals discussing moves towards just such a system.

Political parties are too important to the way we are governed to be excluded from oversight. This is arguably more urgent now that party membership has fallen. Parties with deep roots in civil society could at least claim to be representative of the community. The shells of those organisations that exist today retain legal privileges that accrue mainly to the handful of self-interested actors who control them.

In the past, Turnbull has indicated an interest in banning both corporate and union donations. In NSW, the attempts to ban union donations were struck down by the High Court, but other regulations have been upheld. Many politicians resent the arms race that fundraising has become.

Ministerial staff must be directly accountable to the parliament. The concept of ministerial responsibility has fallen away in modern politics, and the use of staffers to shield them from accountability is rampant. These unelected staffers have close proximity to politicians, but without the oversight of the public service.

Scholars have for some time understood power within the executive branch as more complex than the traditional division between the permanent bureaucracy and the shifting fortunes of the government of the day, or between leaders and factions within the cabinet. Instead, “court politics” is understood as alliances of various actors within government, including party political advisers who try to achieve or block proposals.

Tony Abbott’s chief-of-staff Peta Credlin copped criticism for her command-and-control approach. AAP/Lukas Coch

If, as is often argued, the chief-of-staff to the prime minister is more powerful than some cabinet ministers, that status should be recognised in methods of public accountability, starting with a few appearances before parliamentary committees. While this has been Labor policy since 2004, it hasn’t been tested.

Political fundraising is also something that has very little oversight, and has numerous loopholes for parties to hide donors from the register. The conflation of party political roles and their duty to the state see ministers using their power to raise funds for private organisations – the political parties they represent.

Money buys access to these decision-makers. While it might not buy outcomes, the perception that it does – or the potential that it might – should see major reform to party fundraising enacted.

Buying time with a minister at dinners or roundtable discussions at state and federal party conferences is akin to the prostitution of our democracy, and the players themselves don’t like it. Ministers are already under intense time-pressure to attend party events, engage with the media, position themselves with colleagues and perhaps even get across policy details. The last thing they want is be rolled out as the bait at expensive fundraisers.

But party officials who run election campaigns, and have no accountability in political institutional frameworks, demand that ministers attend such events and have the authority to insist on it.

Change is possible

The major parties that benefit from the electoral system aren’t likely to change it, but change does happen.

New Zealanders were deeply unhappy with their much more centralised system, and they were offered a choice of electoral systems. The complexities of the multi-member electorate, which better balances local representation with proportional representation, didn’t frighten voters away from electoral reform.

The principal advantage of Australia’s system is supposed to be stability, but we have seen that stability reduced because of the two-party model it sustains in the lower house. Now that the Senate has seen a widening of the representatives who might secure election, the major parties, in conjunction with the Greens, have come together to support reform that will knock out microparties.

But such a change would only trade one problem for another. It risks entrenching the Greens in the Senate alongside the majors, reducing the width of representation.

Since the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters recommended changes to Senate voting, some Liberals have become more circumspect as to what they were contemplating supporting. They are concerned that changes establishing the Greens as the third force might make doing business for conservative governments harder than it already is.

This surely goes to the heart of the problem: change is suggested to solve a practical problem in the moment, rather than being grounded in a structural and strategic assessment of what might enrich the representative nature of parliament.

While the dominance of the two-party system itself restricts input into the policymaking processes of government to select parties, the decision-making processes are even narrower. Partyrooms jealously guard their power to select leaders because it is one of the last powers they retain.

Policymaking hasn’t just been restricted to the executive arm of government, it has been narrowly cast within the office of the prime minister. Again, we see the role of unelected political staffers with limited accountability at the heart of modern governments. Where ministers are able to exert influence beyond their role in cabinet, informal groupings such as Rudd’s gang of four widen the rule of government a little beyond the Prime Minister’s Office, but not enough.

Voters feel they are ruled and not governed by their politicians. Backbenchers feel similarly about the executive, and the executive is increasingly ruled by one office – that of the prime minister. It is an irony that so much power rests in one place, yet its stability in maintaining long-term continuity has diminished.

Another advantage of proportional representation – either introduced into the lower house or once again respected in the Senate – is that it would necessitate consultation and bargaining between powerful actors in the political system. This bargaining is already a feature of the current system, but it is opaque: the Liberal–National coalition itself and the factions within parties make deals without regard for the public interest.

One consequence of the hung parliament was a package of reforms to parliament, including independence of the speaker and a Question Time less dominated by the executive. The hung parliament itself was relatively productive, but not popular with the public because some of the policies that arose, such as the carbon tax, were not foreshadowed.

Institutionalising this bargaining, though, will change public expectations of elections, and in turn change the political culture away from adversarialism.

Senate reform to limit the number of microparty senators remains on the agenda of both major parties. AAP/Alan Porritt

It’s on us to create change

There are aspects of Australian political culture that we take for granted, such as the theatre of budget night. Why should the contents of the government’s budget, its most important document, be dripped to the media over weeks and months, only for the treasurer to pull a rabbit out of the hat with a flourish.

British governments release a budget “green paper” prepared by the Treasury with a number of taxation and expenditure options. This is a much more mature approach to policymaking.

One of the reasons for the failure of the two-party system is that society is simply too complex. Recent history is littered with occasions where narrow consultation produced poorly thought-out policy that was reversed after a public or interest group-led revolt.

Governments tend to have a static view of consultation. Parliament has set up useful organs for investigating legislation and abuse of power, which are subject to the demands of the major political parties.

Another limitation is the contrast between the methods of mass-media control described above and the more egalitarian sprit of the internet. The role of social media in reducing politicians to actors in an ongoing political satire is a more recent phenomenon in this arms race. It has caused a lot of cynicism among older politicians in particular, such as Abbott’s dismissal of Twitter as “electronic graffiti”.

Because political life is so tightly managed, few politicians are prepared to take the risks that genuine engagement with social media entails: spontaneity, openness and dialogue. While we should be wary of which socioeconomic groups are dominating these new forms of interaction, that is no reason to avoid exploring ways for government bodies – not just parties and the parliament – to seek public input into their activities.

For the most part, though, we get social media as public relations rather than engagement.

Some of these measures can be institutionalised, but only citizens can change the political culture. We should demand a higher quality standard of debate from media, interest groups, leaders and parties alike.

Despite more ways to directly engage with politicians, those who represent us have never been more out of touch. Despite more opportunities for voters to access their politicians – if only fleetingly via social media – few want to, and fewer still pay attention to the political contest.

When we do pay attention, we are voyeurs into the theatre of politics, rather than the policy debates that matter. The professionalisation of the political system has counterintuitively led to a less stable environment. Prime ministers are all-powerful when it comes to setting the policy agenda and running government, but they are weak when colleagues lose confidence in their capacity to win elections.

The notion of backlash has become a dominant theme in Australian politics: partyrooms exerting what limited power they do have over prime ministers; a backlash in the electorate; and among journalists against the spin of politics and the lack of consultation that we see. Institutions designed to provide checks, such as the Senate, are now seen as roadblocks by governments that want to rule rather than negotiate.

Only when systems change and cultural adjustments occur will the political class return to governing rather than ruling.

Article by Peter van Onselen, Foundation Professor in Journalism, University of Western Australia, and Wayne Errington, Senior Lecturer in Politics, University of Adelaide

Leith van Onselen

Comments

  1. Abolish official political parties. Force politicians to be representatives of their constituents, not a party.

    Bring in citizen initiated referendums and recall elections.

    Come back in ten years.

    • True.

      California has recall elections.

      Switzerland has referendums all the time. Including one on executive pay.

      Get rid of mandatory voting in AUS federal elections.

    • I agree, the party system has morphed into a banal useless duopoly, where politicians are mostly chosen by their capacity to slavishly toe the party line line, enhanced by a healthy dash of nepotism.

      Further, the Laberal party has been irredeemably corrupted by the corporate lobby. Time to bin the party system.

  2. You can change it however you like but while corporations are paying the political bills it’s only going to get worse not better. Government is now neutered by corporate donations and lobbying. If that bloody TPP gets up it will get a whole lot worse before it gets better. It’s a worldwide problem not just here.

    • If it is a global problem, how come Norway, Finland, Iceland, South Korea, Japan, and perhaps Singapore and Hong Kong do not have mass immigration?

  3. “a symptom of the professionalisation of politics, where the drive for government for the sake of power outweighs the purpose for achieving it.”

    This is wrong. We know it’s wrong because:

    “the former prime minister had “a reverse mandate” for much of what was contained in his first budget”

    If you think about it for any more than 60 seconds, the “professionalisation” of political operators is just a more efficient way of producing an easily corruptible, idiot class who blindly implement policies that are handed to them under tables, rather than doing any kind of public representation. The system is hopelessly crooked, people instinctively know it, and their distrust of politicians spreads from there. This article reeks of disinformation.

    • ErmingtonPlumbingMEMBER

      “The system is hopelessly crooked, people instinctively know it”
      Yes, Its the reason Trump may actually become president of the United States,…not because the electorate considers him competent, the vast majority don’t, but because he represents the ultimate protest donkey vote.

      Trump as president would inescapably prove just how broken the American political structure is and millions of voters will vote for him just to prove that point in spite of themselves and a Media that has very unsuccessfully tried to bring him down.

      (Funny how the media don’t even mention Bernie Sanders, a far greater threat to the status quo than the circus that is trump)

      His support from the protest vote along with the millions of dumb arses who actuall agree with his shoot from the hip ramblings gives him an actual chance of getting in!
      If I was a US citizen I would vote for him just to see what happens!.. and Im a supporter of the Wealfare State, along the nordic model of Social democracy.
      Exciting, fun and scary times ahead.

  4. I couldn’t read the whole thing. Just too damn long. Maybe Aussies are just sick of the ruling class because they are thieves and narcissistic assholes ?
    They tell us murder is illegal yet drop bombs all over the Middle East killing untold numbers of people.
    They lock babies up in tropical gulags
    Facilitate money laundering on a unimaginable scale through offshore RE transactions
    Allow multinationals to pay fck all tax through Singapore trading hubs yet your average Serf has is forbidden from this.
    They sell our prized infrastructure to their rent seeking mates
    In short we are sick of them because they are no good MOFOs

    • darklydrawlMEMBER

      “They tell us murder is illegal yet drop bombs all over the Middle East killing untold numbers of people.
      They lock babies up in tropical gulags”…

      hmmmm…. Indeed.

      I also want to hear one of them say “We are doing this for the good of the country”, rather than “For the good of the party”. Do it because it is the right thing to do, not because it is ‘popular’.

      Hell, burning witches was popular back in the day, as was believing the earth was flat. Don’t make it right. They all need to grow a backbone and stop cowering to the media.

      And for once I would them to honestly answer a questions. I would have a lot more respect if they didn’t just ignore the issue and change the topic. No credibility at all when they do that.

      Bombing folks and/or treating them (and their children) like sh!t is a dumb way prevent terrorism too.

  5. Not one word about corruption. The politicians are just following community standards. The financialisation of the economy has resulted in extensive corruption as is always the case.

    The recent reluctance of the authorities to apply the law to blatant law-breaking by lawyers and real estate agents involved in foreign real estate sales is a breaking point in the Australian polity. Here is where it goes as in the US

    http://wallstreetonparade.com/2016/02/60-minutes-raises-the-question-are-dirty-lawyers-running-the-u-s/

    What is a judge but a superannuated lawyer ? Financial corruption is now institutionalised in our courts and parliaments. It won’t go now until we end the financialisation of the economy by the collapse of this finance system following from the collapse of this international finance system.

    The percentage will get anyone that is put in parliament, you have to take the percentage out of the equation.

    • Concur nyleta… for all the verbiage in the post it never ever broaches the fundamental aspects of fraud and corruption, strangely enough, just like the last 40ish years of main stream economics. Which is even more strange when the aforementioned sociopolitical theorists opinions are what informs both business and political operatives over the time period in concern.

      Skippy…. the best part is the Corporatists funded the whole thing back post WWII… but yeah… something is wrong with politics and governments…. eh.

    • Ok, is this blog going nuts with paranoid conspiracists? I have logged back on after a long absence to find this sort of response as well as the continued presence of right wing lackeys like 3dick still here fighting amongst themselves. Click bait is running this show. UE and HnH, either stop it or own up to it. It demeans both bloggers and readers, whether casual or subscribers. Will it change? When it does, watch credibility (and subscriptions) soar. Otherwise, boys, it’s a slow descent into Hell.

      • ErmingtonPlumbingMEMBER

        Analysis of the Instutional process does not make one a paranoid conspiracist.
        In fact it usually leads one to realise that the Aparachiks and leaders of both Coporate and Government systems are usually blissfully unaware of the detrimental and imoral effects their and their instutions behaviour has on greater society.
        Thats not a conspiracy, its just a bunch of self absorbed, career focused, fucktards working in a team like way to destroy whoever is deamed the competition.
        eg other companies, other political parties, other religions/philosophies, other countries.
        Conspiracy theories are for people to lazy to actually learn and think beyond job/career requirements or esoteric sporting knowldge.

    • “The financialisation of the economy has resulted in extensive corruption as is always the case”.

      Yes, this – so many areas of the economy are now institutionalised fraud from uni degrees for visas to corporate tax to housing etc etc.

  6. A couple of questions:
    1, Why isn’t Edie Obied in Jail?
    2, How can Barry O’Farrell run an inquiry into tennis match fixing?

  7. Careerism is a problem.
    Party mechanisms for allocating seats is a problem.
    Media is a massive problem.
    Electors are an eternal problem.

    • Yes, the last four impediments for our largest companies to simply appoint politicians on our behalf all need to be abolished. Instead of elections, we should simply run a state funded nation wide lottery every 3 years. At least the voters will get something out of the process.

    • ErmingtonPlumbingMEMBER

      Interesting and unsurprising that you left out overt coporate influence in policy formation.

      Or their funding of political parties.

      • Once upon a time I used to say vested interests are the economy. It’s still true. But a mistake to think it only corporate.

  8. Gee so many words, yet not even a single sentence about the adoption of the Friedmanite consensus on economic policy which took place after the demise of Fraser and the protectionists. At that time both Hawke, Keating and Labor adopted Friedmanite economics and so too did the Liberals. The problem with politics is there is no choice between one set of Friedmanites and another set. That is the main problem. People feel both parties are the same. Chris Bowen is tinder dry on economics, he will offer little different from Morrison and Hockey. When people say they are all the same they are referring to careerists but they are also referring to the consensus on economic policy between both sides, the prioritisation of fighting inflation and the abandonment by both sides of the policies of full employment. which started in the 1970s

    • Good points. The problem is this tripe is still being taught in our higher learning institutions. The other problem is that Treasury and the RBA thinking has been captured by the same ill defined narrative. For all their babble about new thinking, the politic are still stuck in the Reagan/Thatcher time warp WRT to economics and social policy. They just use new acronyms like TINA etc. Until the groupthink is busted up I fear we are in for more of the same.
      I’m disturbed not by what the article says so much as I expect not much less, but what it doesn’t say.

      • I agree, it is what the article doesn’t say. It contains significant omissions. Just as every Australian economist was a Keynesian in the mid to late 60s, similar group think prevails now. Bill Mitchell and Steve Keen are two who appear different, however one went into exile. In 1974 Thatcher and Joseph broke with the post war consensus. It remains to be seen whether Corbyn and McDonnell’s break with the current failed consensus be of similar significance. The article’s failure to mention the consensus between our major parties on economics is a major shortcoming, rendering it less than credible

  9. For once I find myself agreeing with 3d1k entirely. The one I hate the most though is the party system.

    Political representation in the way jury duty is selected is looking more and more attractive, although if I spent time mulling it over i’m sure there would be a better system.

    Bring on the revolution, my pitchfork is oiled and ready.

  10. “By what standard are you treating the ordo-simu-liberal[1] wing of the Democratic Party as not part of the rightwinger bin that engages in denial and any number of other means of defending their privilege? To me their nature, ideology and interests are clear, and they are those of Markos.

    [1] Ordoliberalism lets business work and cleans up after them. Ordo-simu-liberalism lets business rule and makes a great effort to be seen appearing to clean up their mess while creating billable events.”

    Skippy…. politics is a derivative of and not the advocacy which initiates agency… but yeah…. ev’bal government…. **sigh**

  11. pyjamasbeforechristMEMBER

    Make a cheap and easy way for the government to ask the community for mandates on specific items outside of a general election.

    Eg government wants a mandate on an item. The item is published and disucssed and the government requests a non mandatory online vote on the issue. Via MyGov or similar maybe with the option to post in a paper vote if you are not online. A deadline is set and if x% of the population has voted the government is considered to have a mandate and the opposition should oblige.

    No new law needed, expectations that a mandate has been granted should be enough.

    • Josh MoorreesMEMBER

      +1 I think the move towards direct democracy has to be made. We have the capability to do it right now. But why would politicians risk being told something they don’t want to hear. Like any good lawyer will tell you don’t ask a question you don’t know the answer to.

    • I agree with the sentiment, but have experienced first hand the public consultation model of local government, where the policy is decided before the consultation begins. I guess that’s why we need laws to keep the bastards honest.

  12. I think that article fails to point out that in 1998 Howard purposely sacrificed the LNP to get in his beloved GST – that why he was so un-popular… and people only voted for him because the Liberals had only been in for a single term, as opposed a generation of labour before him. Howard knew that fact – and many Liberals hated him afterward for that cold calculated decision.

    Abbott was a good minister in health (under Howard), but he was no Howard, and other than blundering an unfair budget, eating raw onions on national TV and giving a regent consort an existing title he already had (none those mistakes Howard would have made) – he was never in the same perilous political position that Howard was under. His demise was self inflicted – and its a shame because I had high hopes.

    So on all measures, I think linking Howard and Abbott is a tough ask.

    Then I ask the question – would Howard get away with what he implemented in the 1990’s now… and the answer is clearly NO. Society and culture has changed. No one wants tough, there is no urgency for reform – willingly at least… always focusing on the losers of any implementation (there are always losers in cost cutting – by definition).

    We are due for tough times and tough decisions. Its high unlikely we will accept them until they are forced upon us… which is years, even a decade away, if we start wide scale spending.

    Its not going to end well.

    • I tend to agree. The electorate is not prepared to foresake its ‘entitlements’ even if it means delivering their children a dysfunctional and debt burdened economy.

      I blame the politicians for buying votes, I blame the media for petty equity championing (little equity if the entire system collapses) and I blame the voter for being entirely self-interested, demanding trinkets, ever increasing government ‘services’ abdicating self-responsibility at every opportunity and frankly, not giving a flying fuck who foots the bill, as long as it is not them.

      • Thet starts just after the end of World War Two, when America’s industrial and financial giants, fattened up from war profits, established a new lobbying front group called the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) that focused on promoting a new pro-business ideology—which it called “libertarianism”— chain of events starts with corporatist buying politicians et al…. not starting with politicians buying voters, not only that, but the entire agenda has been to roll back citizens rights – not to be confused with entitlements – for some time now 3d1k… or have you forgotten your own history…

        Skippy…. started off as a propaganda organ for corporatists and religious fundamentalists… with FEE… stay classy kid…

      • I tend to agree. The electorate is not prepared to foresake its ‘entitlements’ even if it means delivering their children a dysfunctional and debt burdened economy.

        When you can convince the wealthy to forsake their entitlements, maybe then you can make a credible argument that the poor need to make some sacrifices as well.

      • ErmingtonPlumbingMEMBER

        Your above coment seems a little uglier than usual 3d.
        Do you share your account with another writer? or have you just finnished binge reading some Ayn Rand?

    • Abbott was a good minister in health (under Howard) […]

      He used his personal religious beliefs to make national policy. Barely a step away from being an anti-vaxxer. He was as disastrous and ill-equipped a health minister as he was PM.

      Unsurprising you think he did a great job.

  13. “New Zealanders were deeply unhappy with their much more centralised system, and they were offered a choice of electoral systems. The complexities of the multi-member electorate, which better balances local representation with proportional representation, didn’t frighten voters away from electoral reform.”

    Quite right, and I argued for a similar change in Australia on another thread on here today ( re, your Senate and scrap it!) But….nothing has changed for NZ even with MMP! It inevitably boils down to Left vs Right and how to build a coalition to proscute that, and today, Left = Right.
    What is needed is a choice; a fearless exchange of idealogy absent the fear of ‘losing’. Bernie Sanders may have that; Donald Trump may; Nigel Farage may. And all for differing reasons. Jackie Lambie may. Until we have politicians that have ‘ nothing to lose’ ( what I’d stupidly believed we had found in our John Key) then nothing will change, no matter what system we all vote under.
    It takes guts to risk failure, and risk delivers change.

    • Janet all the deliberations that don’t acknowledge neoliberalism, whence it came, what its ideology really portends, and how it became dominate is just mental wanking…

      Skippy…. hint… it did not start off as a political or academic theory…

      • I don’t know any more. I honestly thought that good would out; that progress was made from ideas, well argued. I marched in the moratoria of the 1960’s against Vietnam, and now wonder at the innocence and naivety of that effort.
        As I say, I don’t know. Maybe that’s why we are where we are……

      • Janet those with out bargain power will always get the short end of the stick, so where did it go and whom has it now…

      • “I honestly thought that good would out; that progress was made from ideas, ”

        There is much to like about humanity, but as a species we’re also deeply flawed. You can see both aspects in our systems, institutions and everything we do. There will never be a perfect society or economy, we just need to muddle through and try not to keep forgetting the big lessons of the past.

      • rob barrattMEMBER

        Skippy
        ”those without bargain power will always get the short end of the stick”. Reminded me of David Lloyd George’s many comment s about the patrician corridors of power, and as to how the great war would stop tomorrow if the people really knew what it was all about.
        Plus que ca change….

      • ErmingtonPlumbingMEMBER

        “all the deliberations that don’t acknowledge neoliberalism, whence it came, what its ideology really portends, and how it became dominate is just mental wanking…”

        I’ve frequently put words of a similar vein to irritated friends and family members but the conversation is always quickly steered back (by them) to “mental wanking.

        I liked your
        “Those with out bargain power will always get the short end of the stick, so where did it go and whom has it now…”

        Its hard enough getting youngins to even think about this question Skip, let alone demand an answer to it.

        Keep up the good work brother.

    • I don’t think there is a left and right anymore in Australian politics Janet. Both parties occupy pretty much the same turf, it’s just that thugs like Abbott and his cronies let their masks drop a bit when they were overcome by their own hubris. The socioeconomic narrative is different, but the policies from both deliver exactly the same outcomes, which is what happens with careerism in politics.

      • Malcolm… environment dictates the outcomes more so than individuals i.e. take any newbie congressional individual and toss them in the deep end of corruption, only two choices for the majority, leave or conform. Hence the problem is not endlessly fiddling with the system to arbitrarily stop corruption but not allowing it in, in the first place.

        A lot of this was dealt with post the GD, tho special interests made inroads over time with ratchet like effect, presto… GFC…

  14. First, thanks to MB for the cross-post and to the author – Peter van Onselen – for the thought-peace [not a thesis, for you arm-chair critics who can do little more than criticise its omissions]. This deserves good debate, because there appears strong and often passionate consensus that we have indeed lost confidence in our political system and our politicians.

    Second, it was therefore interesting to see the lead article on abc.net this morning: “Coalition MPs fear electoral damage over potential GST hike”. Which goes to the heart of the matter already identified by 3d and others above – “Careerism is a problem” – and many politicians are clearly more concerned by re-election than participating in good government. But this is not a recent maleficence – Sir Humphrey taught us that a generation ago.
    In said abc.net article, I was also encouraged, however, that at least one MP – who holds the most marginal seat in Brisbane – exhibited some of the moral fibre we yearn for: “At the end of the day governments are elected to govern, so I can’t look at my own individual seat and say this would be bad for me and ‘ooh let’s all freeze up and not do anything’ … At the end of the day we want to improve things for the Australian community.” Right now, Mr Howarth, you could grow your fringe and shoot one of your constituents and I would still probably vote for you.
    The system is severely diseased, but not entirely without a heartbeat.

    So, third and finally, how can we bring the patient back to health?
    He’s some ideas – open for debate, as I am old enough that none of you young MB’ers blessed with the impertinence of youth can cause me offense.

    1. Two tiers of government. Our three tier system is equivalent to the USA’s Second Amendment. A nice idea from the forefathers at the time of Federation that has outgrown its sense. Two tiers will produce both more efficient and more accountable government, ending the “well it’s Canberra’s / State’s problem” response of the political weaklings. The Senate is there to preserve “State rights”. And a stronger tier of Local Government would be welcomed by all [Auburn anyone?].

    2. Maximum of two terms (per house). If you love your country and want to make it better, you have 6 or 8 years to bring your ideas for change to the nation’s table. Then – like most people who have only one book or hit record in them – exit door left and let the next wave of reformists have a chance. If you’ve achieved success in the Lower House within your two term limit and demonstrated good judgement and sound wisdom, you should have a chance to seek passage to the House of Review for a further maximum of two terms.

    3. Capped and transparent donations. Really, not that hard

    4. Double the current salaries. There is evidence (http://freakonomics.com/2012/06/21/would-paying-politicians-more-attract-better-politicians/) that you’ll get better representatives. Singapore certainly thinks so. Higher salaries might also be a partial impediment to brown paper bags. Higher salaries also compensate for the point which follows:

    5. No life pensions / gold passes. You have been adequately compensated for your contribution to our country. Now get your snout out of the trough and back to the workforce.

    6. Greater use of Direct Democracy. We created politicians for a practical reason. It was hard to get the village together every time we needed to make an important decision. So we outsourced that decision making to a few of the more sensible village elders. Well, its time to in-source some of our abdication. “We have the technology, peoples”. Use the two tiers of government to filter, prioritise, articulate and debate the best ideas for a better nation. Then push as much of the vote that you can back to the informed constituents for immediate, electronic determination.

    There we go. I’ve changed into my t-shirt with a large circular target on the front. Fire away.

    … just don’t get me started on our completely rogered legal system …

    • I like your ideas, Auld Kodger, +100
      Your last line is the fly in the buttermilk.
      “our completley rogered legal system..”
      Abolishing the states will drive said legal system into a feeding frenzy the like of which we have not seen. I agree it would enhance good governance,13 houses of parliament to govern 22 million people is complete over kill. Perhaps some on the Liberal party back bench who support smaller government may be persuaded to come on board, although what we are talking about is less government.
      Nothing will happen without a cause, I’m puuting my 2bobs worth on the impending financial failure to fertilise the seeds you have sown.

      • Thank you Bolstrood. You are wise for your years.
        Transition Management 101: First bring me a crisis
        [… then the head of a lawyer]

    • 1. Two tiers of government – OK. We dump State government. Unwanted, unloved, and unneeded.

      2. Max two terms – like! It would get rid of the major problem of career politicians, who live only to retain power.

      3. Donations – drop it to none at all.

      4. Double current salaries. Only with the proviso that, if a politician is found to be corrupt, every cent he/she has earned from his/her life in politics is reclaimed, either in cash or assets. Any trusts they have set up to try and safeguard their ill-gotten gains are unilaterally dismantled. If that beggars them, tough shit. Then they get to spend 10 years in jail as a reward.

      5. No gold passes. Yes. You got paid for the job while you were doing it, that’s enough.

      6. Direct democracy. Yes yes yes.

      I’d also erect a guillotine out the front of Parliament House, just as a reminder of what can happen when you piss the people off enough.

  15. The politicians are a reflection of the electorate. Tony Abbott is not an abberation… he IS the Australian everyman, distilled into a political animal.

    Nothing will improve until Australians suffer the consequences of their actions. And it is coming, oh my yes.