Swingers Regret Poll

[Mr Q]

Wouldn't it be better if the govt of the day could go right ahead with it's policies without having to massage them significantly to appease so minority party or independent. In this way they have no excuses. If the government of the day "run hard, do good" - they get rewarded with another term by the voting punter. If they stuff up, they stuff up because of their policies & have no excuses - they are then shown the door by said punters.

No. The need for an alternate house is critical. What a Government recieves when it is elected is a mandate to govern. That does not imply acceptance of all its policies by the public at large. To allow a government unfettered right to pursue an agenda without effective opposition permits them to implement the more radical aspects of their agenda. It also allows them the ability to ram through legislation to enshrine those more radical aspects in such a way that it is difficult for those changes to be undone if that government was later thrown out.

The only thing comparable to having one major party having control over both houses is one major party having a majority in the Lower House and the other major party in the Upper House (as was traditional in Western Australia under previous Labor Governments). This leads a frustrated Government to do stupid things in an attempt to enforce its agenda against a very hostile upper house thus creating fertile grounds for the likes of WA Inc.

 

[Squeak]

Why do we need "checks and balances" in the senate?? Did Keating get it right by saying the Senate was a "non-representative swill"??

Yes, I can understand the idea behind the "checks & balances" theory (and could probably mount an argument supporting it), but this can really hinder the govt at the time.

Wouldn't it be better if the govt of the day could go right ahead with it's policies without having to massage them significantly to appease so minority party or independent. In this way they have no excuses. If the government of the day "run hard, do good" - they get rewarded with another term by the voting punter. If they stuff up, they stuff up because of their policies & have no excuses - they are then shown the door by said punters.

I suppose in a nutshell I'm advocating getting rid of the Senate. Works in Queensland - or does it???

Fatty

I see your point, but in my mind all parties had crap policies, just Libs were less crap. I wouldn't be a fan of all their ideas being realised.

 

[DaveW]

Half of the new senate was formed at the last election, where the Coalition did exceptionally well.

At the absolute worst, the Coalition was going to have at least 32 of 76 (42%) seats in the new senate.

If Coalition voters didn't want their party to gain a senate majority, they shouldn't have voted for them.