make-believe.org

Wazza

I strongly disagree with your view on this one Joe. The most significant day in Japanese politics occured three days ago when a significant number of LDP politicians voted against party lines, and caused the rejection of a piece of legislation which would have privitized the world’s largest financial institution - Japan Post. It’s a wasteful, inefficient organization that bankrolls the most insidious practices of the Japanese government. For a simple background article refer to this;

http://www.theage.com.au/news/editorial/the-lion-kings-doordie-bid-for-reform/2005/08/09/1123353314060.html

Simply, LDP politicians, voted into office on a clear platform of a reform, have voted against the key plank of reform. They have betrayed the people who voted for them, and if these LDP politicians, or anyone else really wants to represent just the constituents in their piddling little town, they should have stood as independents. It’s a fine line between finding your conscious, and representing special interest groups.

web designer

Wazza is partly correct.

Jaded Hack

I think you’re missing the point. MPs in the Westminster system have a very well established avenue for representing their constituents - the Party Room. This is where most of the individual representation of constituents occurs because in a Westminster system, strong party lines need to be held in Parliament to ensure that we have stable government. Before we had strong parties in Australia, the Commonwealth Parliament used to be called ‘The Three Elevens’ as it was largely seen as three different cricket teams who changed sides randomly and consequently policymaking and governing smoothly was a nightmare.

Party discipline also manages and streamlines representation as a voter anywhere around Australia can vote for a party-candidate and be sure that that MP will hold that party line. This allows the average joe/average joesephine to hold his or her MP accountable in three years time.

National MPs like Barnaby Joyce have been saying the same things he’s been saying about Telstra, Rural Policy and Regional Unis for years, its just they’ve only been saying so in the Party Room.

Grow up.

Vince

Hack, the party room may be a “very well established avenue” for MPs and Senators to represent the interests of their constituents. One problem: it’s not transparent. And if a government parliamentarian (or several) feels that important disagreements and interests are not being addressed in the party room, then shouldn’t they, in the best democratic spirit, air them publicly? Why are other avenues for representation less legitimate simply because they aren’t “very well established”?

OK, the ‘Three Elevens’ argument: it’s destabilising and doesn’t make for smooth policymaking or governing. For one, I don’t think that policymaking or governing should necessarily be too smooth in any case. National MPs like Barnaby Joyce (sic: he’s a senator, man) probably have been saying the same things as he has in the party room for years. But the bygone years of the Howard government have not, until now, included a Senate majority. That changes the ethical and strategic dynamics of how willing a government MP or Senator is to accept his party’s policies and legislation.

Let’s face it, Australian democracy isn’t teetering on the edge of a precipice just because Barnaby Joyce went outside the party room to say that he disagrees with the Liberal party line.

Joseph

Vince is entirely correct.