-------------
Quote:
No, we don't know what happens then - it's never hapened before. And the fact is that the "hung" Parliament wasn't hung at all - it passed more Bills than previous Parliaments in the same timeframe. Different directions? Sure, just as there are now. That's why votes on Bills are either "yay" or "nay" and not 100 different options. I disagree strongly with your pronouncement that "human nature" means that such a system couldn't work. Clearly, you've never worked in Government and been in the meetings/discussions I've been in - 100 different ideas/options is usually the way any effort starts. But you miss the main point - the expertise (the ideas, options, projections) mostly comes from the the public service, and where it doesn't, it's from committees and enquiries. Private member's Bills are rare. And another thing - party room discussions are not smooth sailing - far from it. Part of this proposal involves moving the debate out of the party room (as there'd be no parties) and into the chamber and/or committees so we (the people) can see it.
|
-------------
Astro-Bot,
Not at any time did I use the word "options", so please do not change the meaning of what I wrote. And no, I have never worked in government-Thank God! But I have seen the results of well-meaning government committees interfering in the professional field in which I worked-absolutely nothing to recommend it.
Unless government consults with the groups/professions that they are making decisions for, they will continue to stuff things up under your system just as much as they do now.
We need smaller, less intrusive government before we need a change in how politicians are selected.
-------------