Politics and politicians are on the nose in countries that like to  call themselves democracies.  This is especially so in countries like ours that have adopted a version of the English two party system.  Failings in that system have led to what are called ‘populist’ movements in the U S and U K.  By and large, we have escaped that curse here. 

The main reason may be that we just can’t be bothered, but our failings are different to those in the U S or U K. 

For the non-partisan observer, it is hard to tell what is the difference between the platforms of the Liberal Party and the Labor Party.  Any differences are matters of degree only, and not of kind.  That is unhealthy, because it creates the impression that neither stands for any distinct difference in principle. 

Very few sane people want to pay more tax or get less benefits from government in return.  The trick is to balance the two.  People whose jobs are on the line at each election may not be the best at handling that trick.  What is entirely clear is that the leaders of both parties have been well and truly frightened off taking a stand as a matter of principle. 

But the reaction here has not been the rise of populism.  That embarrassing flash in the pan has been largely contained here, notwithstanding some dropping of the guard by some vote-chasing Liberals.  (It is called ‘dog whistling’.)

We have reacted by electing principled independents.  Who happen to be women.  Who then raise the question – are they just better at this than men?  (In my view, they are.)

In the election just held, I could not bring myself to vote for either major party, because in my view each has been guilty of a moral failing in not responding to the vice of advertising gaming on sport.  Since I am in a safe seat with no independent, and I could not care about the Senate, my time in the booth was as useless as it was short.

Every now and then, the two-party system produces a leader who is prepared to take a position, and fight for it, on an issue of principle.  Margaret Thatcher and Paul Keating come to mind, but not many others – and you need to take care where you drop either name.

It is axiomatic that the two-party system is only as good as the two parties.  A weak opposition will lead to bad government.  We are acutely aware of this in Victoria, and must now look for it federally.

The election just held was a disaster for one party – and therefore the rest of us.  The Liberal Party is now so weak, and seen to be both weak and unprincipled, that it may not be able to discharge its function in opposition of keeping government on the rails.  As Philip Coorey remarked, you cannot engage in soul searching if you have no soul.  We here in Victoria may be just as badly off in federal government as we are in state government.

In my view, the Liberal Party finds itself looking into the void because it has no defined world view, and it has failed to discharge its obligations as the party of His Majesty’s Opposition. 

That fine English historian Dr J M Thompson stated the role of opposition parties as follows:

… an Englishman …. has been trained to exercise his party spirit in the game called the Party System; and among the rules of that game – not always observed [1929] as they should be – are the obligation to sink personal differences in party loyalties, not to criticise your opponent’s policy unless you have a better one that you are prepared to carry out yourself, and in case of national crisis, to help rather than hinder whatever government may be in power.  But party politics in the French Assembly meant a very different thing….so majority legislation might be merely partisan, and minority criticism merely destructive and irresponsible.

You don’t criticize the government until you have a better policy, and you do not get in the way in a time of national crisis.  That is not statesmanship, a word that now dies on our lips.  It is common sense and common courtesy.

We are in a time of national crisis of a kind that some call ‘existential’ with the climate.  The then Leader of the Opposition said he could not comment because he was not a scientist.  That was downright silly, but it did entail that the issue is one to be resolved by scientists, not politicians.  It should never have been a party-political issue – on which the Liberal Party delivered raw tripe, and looked to be in thrall of a very rich lady who has bought a think tank just for herself.

Nor should the treatment of the First Nations have been allowed to degenerate into a demeaning party-political squabble.  It was far too important for that.  The referendum was called as part of government policy carried at election, and the opposition knew that history showed it would fail if they opposed it.  So, they did, and with fear and deception.  The result was in my view disgraceful, and the worst failing of governance in Australia since the Dismissal in 1975.  Those calling it a win remind me of Douglas Jardine on Bodyline.  As the poet said, ‘out went the candle and we were left darkling.’  Round up the usual suspects; as it happens, the same Born to Rule crowd that sends us to war on false premises.

Now they have paid the price.

But it is obvious that we are all worse off.  The Murdoch crowd have form for being bad losers (as of course does their American idol).  They pout and they sulk, and one lady looks like her soul has left her body.  Then she and the booster in chief last night joined hands to proclaim that they had not fought enough culture wars, and that the referendum was one culture war they had won. 

What was really sad is that they did not see this as a confession.  And they forget that the Anglo-Saxon peoples distrust intellectuals and ideology.  (Name one nation that has benefited from either.)

The two-party system of democracy is like our adversarial system of litigation.  It involves a contest, but it is not a game.  And these people do not just fail by treating it as a game, but they play the wrong kind of game – they play poker, when what is needed is the demurer contest of bridge. 

In truth, they have been sucked into what might be called the ‘McConnell Model’ of opposition.  Just oppose everything the government proposes.  Put a spoke in the wheels of government.  And then let the government feel the wrath of the people.  Then it will be our turn again to hand out the goodies, and the folks at home will get what they deserve.  

What could be simpler?  It goes down a treat in Africa.

The independents are alive and well.  The minor parties – the Greens and One Nation – in my view deserve each other and their decline. 

As it seems to me, we are beginning to transition away from the two-party model to the European.  It is hard to see how we could be worse off.

So, what is the answer?  Simple, Mate.  Turn the footy back on, and then go back to sleep.