Mr Rudd's shame

No posts Thursday, Friday because I was in Broken Hill. Came back to Mr Rudd's PNG refugee solution. We have entered uncharted territory here.

At a policy level, it's a very Ruddian solution, expensive and (I think) only partially thought through. I have no idea how its going work in practice. There are just too many variables involved. I think that it's possible to identify the risks in the policy.

I may be wrong, I don't know enough about PNG politics, but I would have thought that it was a highly unstable solution. It may just create a festering sore on our immediate borders. If I was in the people smuggling business, I guess that my new message would be we will get you to PNG and then it will be easier for you to get into Australia. We can do that too.

At a political level, I find it equally confusing.

Intuitively, its a a bit of a godsend to the Greens who were in diabolical trouble. They now have a new cause. The Green's don't need mass votes, they just need  a few percentage points to hold their Senate numbers. So the big voting mass being targeted by the majors was never a real Green concern. All they need is to attract three people in a hundred who feel wedged by the issue.

So far as the opposition is concerned, I do not share the view that Mr Rudd has neutralised this issue. All the opposition has to do is to argue that this is another example of a half-baked Rudd, another example of a Rudd swinging in the political wind. This policy, they could say, won't work. They don't even need a convincing case. They only need to be vaguely credible while hammering the costs and risks of the Rudd solution.

At a purely personal level, I feel deeply shamed. I know that many of my friends disagree with my views on refugee issue issues. I accept that. I believe that any nation or group actually has a right to determine who should belong. I have been attacked for that view on the other side. I accept that. But this is just inhumane and shameful.

This is modern New South Walesism, politics without principle whose sole role, the only judgment, is to to stay in power now. I feel deeply shamed.  

1970s Eden Monaro & the lessons for current politics

I continue to be fascinated by the gyrations of Australian politics just at present and, beyond the theatre, the way that this is affecting public policy.

Over on Poll Bludger, William Bowie has a very useful analysis (BludgerTrack: 50.1-49.9 to Coalition) on the meaning of current poll patterns. I was especially interested in his views on minority party votes, including especially the Greens. I have felt for a while that the Green vote had peaked, and I also felt that in polarised electoral climate minority parties nearly always struggle.

In looking at the votes of minority parties and especially the Greens, I am strongly influenced by my knowledge of the history of the Country/National Party.

Like the Greens, it had a varying but strong regional base. The Country Party's was stronger in the lower house, for it established itself as the natural majority party in certain limited geographic areas in a way that that the Greens have yet to achieve. Outside those base areas, the Party had a chance across other parts of country Australia, but its electoral hold was unstable. Like the Greens recently, the Party has had to struggle with questions of cooperation with a larger party to achieve its objectives while yet retaining independence.

Starting almost from scratch in Eden Monaro in 1972, the Party almost won the seat, achieving a two party preferred swing against Labor - this was the It's Time election - of 2.7%. It had a well known and popular local candidate in Roy Howard, the Party's national leadership was well known and popular, while the Liberal Party under William McMahon was a little on the nose, but not enough to really polarise. So the Country Party attracted its small base vote plus a little of the Labor vote and a bit more of the Liberal vote.

In 1974, the Party ran another very well known candidate in Ron Brewer who had been the popular Country Party member for Goulburn. Again the Party came within an inch of winning. It attracted more Liberal votes, the Liberal vote fell to 19.9%, but Labor had a very good candidate in Bob Whan who was able to regain Labor votes.

The following year, the Country Party again ran a very well known candidate in weather broadcaster John Moore. But this time, the Country Party vote fell from 30.1% to 19.6%, the Labor vote fell by 5.3%, while the Liberal vote surged by 15.4% collecting both Labor and Country Party voters, This collapse mirrored a polarised electorate in which the dominant question had become whether or not you were in favour of Labor and Gough Whitlam. If you were against, most went Liberal. There was little room for alternative voices. Liberal Murray Sainsbury was elected.

In a way, 2013 is a mirror image of 1975. We have a polarised electorate centered on personalities. There is little room here for alternative views. The problem is compounded by the Green's own tactical errors.

It will be reasonably clear from my writings that I am not a Green supporter. But I think it a pity from a national perspective that Greens and others are being crowded out of the debate. Still, for an analyst like me it remains fascinating, nevertheless.  

It's the economy, stupid

It's interesting how the Australian political dynamics change. The latest opinion polls have really given Labor a boost. Mr Rudd is busily changing things, although the more they change, the more some things stay the same. Mr Abbott is struggling to respond and as a consequence has done a few silly things. With their standard writing parameters upset, the media is struggling to work out how to deal with it all.

In the midst of all the turmoil, watch the economy. This will finally lay down the parameters of the policy debate, and the Australian economy has entered a very interesting phase. My feeling is that Mr Rudd is in no haste to rush to an election. The longer he delays, the longer current economic trends have to work themselves out.

First Footprints and constitutional recognition for Australia's First Peoples

Tonight a short ramble.

First Footprints

Neil liked the ABC's First Footprints, First Footprints delivered!, as did I. The series traces the long Aboriginal occupation of this continent. There were things that annoyed me in that first episode, but my reaction was in part that they did a pretty good job, in part wondering at just how far our knowledge had come since I was a member of Australia's first Australian prehistory honours class all those years ago.

For those who are interested, you can watch the first episode free on download for the next few days - http://www.abc.net.au/iview/#/series/12680.

Constitutional Recognition of Australia's First Peoples

As it happened, almost straight after watching First Footprints on download, I listened to a an ABC Radio National program on the Australian constitution, including a discussion on recognition of Aboriginal peoples in the document. As it happens, this is something that I agree with, but as I listened I thought how hard it all was, 

One problem is that exponents feel the need to convince, rather than explain. A second problem is that if you wish to bring about change on an issue, discuss the issue. If you mix it in with other causes, and "popular" causes tend to run in teams, then you will fail.

A third problem is that people fail to recognise that our apparently pedestrian constitution is simply legal wrapping surrounding Australia's parliamentary system of Government.

I have absolutely no doubt that there will be some form of recognition of Australia's first peoples inserted in the constitution. However, I also suspect that it will take between three and ten years because time is required for issues to be argued through and for a community consensus to form.

Setting the Boundaries for Change

One of the really big problems with constitutional change is simply setting the boundaries of change, That is why there is really very little chance of a republic attracting a yes vote. There is no agreement on the bounds, on the definition of just what a republic might mean.

Aboriginal recognition in a preamble is really a different issue. People can agree to that. If, however, the intent were to alter some of the substantive provisions, then I think that any referendum is likely to fail.

Role of Parliament

In any case, I don't think that substantive provisions are required. In our system, Parliaments have the power within the defines set by the constitution. Most of the real demands for recognition of Aboriginal rights can be achieved through Parliament. If they can't get through there, they are highly unlikely to get through via constitutional change.

This doesn't make a new preamble just a piece of window dressing. Insertion in the constitution actually places a pressure on Parliament. It increases the chances of other things happening.  

Hockey, two Clares & coincidence in a far city

It was already getting cold as Clare and I arrived at Moorebank for the hockey. I stood there with a pink champagne (a charity fund raiser was on at the same time) watching the girls get ready. By the time the game got underway, it was dark and quite cold.

I chatted to a dad from the other team, for I had overheard him mention Armidale.

"Where does your daughter play", I asked? "Goalie", he said. "So does mine," I responded. "Yes", he said, "Clare was born in Armidale when we were up there. I was teaching at Dem and completing my honours at the University of New England."  "Good lord", I said, "My Clare was born in Armidale too. How do you spell Clare?" "C L A R E" he said. "Same spelling," I said. "What did you do honours in?" "History", he said. "So did I", I replied.

We chatted on, two dads with the same degrees from the same place, watching two daughters with the same names born in the same city play against each other in the same positions in a city far distant. There was a certain symmetry to it all.       

The significance of the death of Lucy Donoghoe

I used to listen or watch cricket and especially the Ashes, but this seems to have been crowded out in a time poor world. Still, the current Ashes series and especially Ashton Agar's huge knock at number eleven has certainly caught my attention!

I was trying to think how to explain the game to a friend who knows little about it. Difficult, actually!

News yesterday of the death of Lucy Donoghoe nee Johnstone. Lucy was the last surviving member of the class of 1938, the first student intake at the newly established New England University College and, consequently, the first university student intake in Northern NSW, the broader New England that I write about so often.

More, she was the last surviving member of the first university student intake anyway in Australia outside the then six capital city universities. It would be a number of years before university education became available elsewhere across the broad mass of the Australian continent.

This photo from Paul Barratt shows Paul Barratt Snr presenting UNE Chancellor Sir Earle Page with the University's first mace.

Margot Watkins, a friend of Lucy's, contacted me via the Armidale Express (thanks Cindy and Lydia) because she thought that I would want to know and might write something about it. I did want to know and am already doing so. I have also contacted the University of New England via its Facebook page to see if I can get something done there,

One of the difficulties with modern organisation structures with their constant pattern of change is that they lose their history. This has practical management implications, the folk memory of what we do and why we do it, is actually very important to effective functioning. More broadly, the very history of organisations and areas becomes attenuated.

Many areas of Australia have had to fight for education. Lucy's death is significant not just for New England or for UNE. It is also a small memorial of the first success of a broader change, the movement to make university education available to all Australians no matter where they live. I think that's kind of important.        

No pre-selection or pledge & the Rudd factor 2

This post follow's up yesterday's No pre-selection or pledge & the Rudd factor. The no pre-selection or pledge is in fact the first political slogan adopted by the NSW Progressive, later Country, Party. I will come back to this in a moment. Immediately, where do political parties fit into the Australian constitution?

The short answer is that they don't in any formal sense. They are essentially an enabling device, a way of organising votes for elections to gain seats and then organise MPs on the floor of Parliament so as to gain or influence power. As such, they sit outside the formal constitution.

Are they an efficient device? It depends on what is meant by efficient. Measured by the capacity to organise groups and to gain power, they have been efficient so far as the Australian system is concerned. Have they been a good thing in marshalling and focusing opinion, in presenting alternative ideas? This one is more arguable, although I think that most Australian historians would probably answer yes.

An effective party system requires an degree of discipline, a willingness to adhere to a party line. Where party lines are more fluid as in the US or PNG, a degree of governmental paralysis can result. On the other hand, too rigid a party system totally focused on winning and power can lead to dominance of one view, a crowding out of alternatives, the atrophy of Parliament itself in the face of executive power. So where do you draw the line?

The two elements in the Progressive Party electoral slogan bear upon this question.

The Party was formed in part in opposition to what was perceived at the time as the rigidities and evils of machine politics. The no pre-selection element meant that the Party could not discriminate between candidates. Any member in good standing should be able to run in the Party name. leaving it to the electors to decide, to choose between them. This one fell away for practical reasons, although the habit of endorsing multiple candidates for a single seat would last for decades.

The second component, no pledge, reflect a similar constitutional ethos. It was a reaction to the signed pledge that, with varying wording over time, demanded of Labor candidates that  if elected they would always vote in Parliament in accordance with the platform and decisions made by a vote of the Caucus. This was seen as un-Parliamentary and undemocratic.   A Parliamentarian acquired a greater loyalty to constituents and Parliament. This view was not universal even in the Country Party. The more politically radical small farmer based Victorian Country Party, for example, did initially demand a pledge.

So we have a spectrum of views from loyalty to the Party as dominant on one end of the spectrum, with loyalty to Parliament and the freedom of Parliamentarians to follow their conscience at the other end. Mind you, loyalty is always a relative concept as evidenced by the size and venom of the Labor splits during the First World War, the Great Depression and then the mid Fifties.

In similar vein, at the other end of the spectrum you can see the tensions that can arise in areas such as refugee policy where members do exercise their conscience against the wishes of the Party. You can also see it in some of the more venomous attacks on Messrs Windsor and Oakeshott over their perceived disloyalty.

If we now look again at Mr Rudd's proposed changes to the election of the Labor leader, this is really an extra-constitutional matter since it is concerned with the way Labor governs itself, and that is not an constitutional issue as such, although it may have implications for the power of Parliamentarians. In Canada, for example, historian Christopher Moore has long argued that the Canadian system of electing leaders has actually emasculated the power of Parliament and of Parliamentarians by taking away the power of Parliamentarians to chose their own leader.

It seems to me that Mr Abbott's comments about the people electing the PM is quite a different matter. They don't. That is anti-constitutional, Even leaving aside the constitutional position, if the public opinion polls are any guide,the majority of the people don't want Mr Abbott as PM, they won't be electing him. Rather, if the Coalition wins, people will be voting for a Coalition Government of which Mr Abbott happens to be the head.

You can see this even more clearly, perhaps, if you look at the National Party. Clearly people aren't voting for Warren Truss as National Leader and Deputy PM, but for the local member and/or party. Mr Truss has been a loyal deputy in the Coalition, but should he become Deputy PM, nobody could really say that he had been elected by the people, just his Party colleagues. And that, to my mind, is as it should be.          

No pre-selection or pledge & the Rudd factor

I have been slow to post because I am bogged down in writing.

In my last post (Saturday Morning Musings - the Rudd electoral factor) I wondered about the benefits of incumbency in the rather unusual Rudd context. Now that seems to be flowing through - see Abbott under pressure as the game changes as an example.

Meantime, the recent post I wrote on representative democracy, The importance of representative democracy, retains relevance. The importance of Parliament was central to that post.

At one level, Mr Rudd's proposal that the Labor leader should be elected by a mixture of Parliamentarians and the Party membership seems democratic. But is it? How does it fit with the ideal of Parliamentary democracy and the power of Parliament? Equally, and as the Australian Democrats found, election of party leaders by party members can be very messy.

Mr Abbot's response that Mr Rudd is wrong, that the people elect the PM, is worse for it is a clear breach of representative democracy. The people don't elect the PM, nor can or should they in our system. That's not their role.

And the heading in this post? It's a political slogan from the past. I will explain tomorrow.  

Saturday Morning Musings - the Rudd electoral factor

Today's Saturday Morning Musings is a round-up of some of the things that attracted my attention over the last week, things that I could have written about but didn't because of time.

The Rudd Incumbency Factor

One of the things that I completely underestimated with newly returned Australian PM Rudd is what I have come to think of as the Rudd incumbency factor. In normal circumstances, the sudden replacement of a Prime Minister on the eve of election by a Government in desperate trouble would leave that Government struggling to regain legitimacy. But these are not normal times.

Mr Rudd was a PM who was deposed. Now that he is back as PM the reaction from most, and I include the media, is to think of the new Rudd Government not as a new Government but as a continuation of the previous Rudd administration. Has he changed? Will he be more inclusive? What will he do now?  That's a very powerful weapon, for it gives Mr Rudd something of the benefit of legitimacy and incumbency. He is taken seriously in a way that an alternative Labor leader such as Mr Shorten would not have been. In collective Australian mental mud maps, he is PM Rudd.

There is another variable, one that I struggle to explain. Australians like a fighter. They like a fighter who wins or, sometimes, fails. Mr Rudd draws from that.

The Political Landscape

Mr Rudd has changed the political dynamics. Here I am especially interested in the minority parties and in the Senate.

The New England independents and the independents movement were casualties of the Gillard period. By the end of the Gillard period, the Greens were in desperate trouble, with their Senate campaign in disarray. In a polarised electorate with support for environmental issues in decline, their support for the Gillard Government threatened their position in the Senate. By contrast, new political movements were gathering support from non-Labor voters who did not want to vote for Mr Abbott. There were a lot of them, including the parties established by Messrs Palmer and Katter.

The world has changed. It's become more fluid.

Accepting that views will change between now and the election, a slab of votes appear to have moved back to Labor. Some of those votes would have gone to the Greens, a few to the new parties, but most to the Liberals. With a more clearly demarcated contest and a more popular Labor leader, non-Labor votes that would have gone to the new parties will drift back to the coalition. And for those Labor people who absolutely detest Mr Rudd but who can in no way vote for Mr Abbott, they are likely to go to the Greens.  

What happens between now and the election will be important in determining the final mix.

The Regionality of Australian Politics 

All the Australian political parties are regional parties in that their greatest strength is concentrated in specific geographic areas. This is usually presented in socio-economic terms, but it is a little more than that. Local members argue for their local causes, what is seen as important for their electors and especially those who vote for them. This feeds back. 

Of all the main parties, only the Nationals are explicitly regional and then it is presented in terms of regional Australia as compared to specific regions. Yet regional bias remains true for all parties. I make this point now because it is often ignored. The current media focus on the importance of Western Sydney to the national election is expressed in marginal seat terms, but it is still a very explicitly regional focus.

Policy Fluidity

Earlier I commented on the real policy vacuum that had emerged with an Opposition that was not required to really focus on policy at this point and a Government that was failing to present an effective new policy direction, but instead focused on a few elements in the status quo.

This is no longer true. Everything is now up for grabs. Nothing is fixed, although in some ways nothing has changed. Still, people are actually talking policy.

The Biggest Party Winner?   

Based on earlier discussion in this post, I clearly think that the Greens have gained. But the biggest winner in relative terms is the National Party. If my analysis is correct, they may have contained the challenges posed by Messrs Palmer and Katter. More importantly, they have regained the two seats held by the New England independents, restoring their control over the New England or Northern heartland that has formed the Party's core base since its formation.

With population shifts, New England is less important now in relative terms. But it remains the only large geographical area of Australia where the Party is seen as the natural party and has been since 1920,

Postscript

After finishing this post, I wandered up to Kingsford to do some shopping. The Liberals were out in force, campaigning for Dr Michael Feneley. This is somewhat new, for Kingsford Smith is a traditional Labor seat. Previously held by Peter Garrett who has decided not to contest the election, it is now on the front line.

I worked my way through the Liberal Party workers, taking a few snaps. Sadly, I had to delete the best shot. "Did you take our photo", I was asked. It was pretty clear that this wasn't welcome, so I asked "Would you like me to delete the shot?" "Yes", was the firm reply. I did so, and chatted to the couple and a Liberal Party worker.

Like the first party worker I had spoken to, an extremely enthusiastic Chinese lady, this was one a patient of Dr Feneley, but also a long term Liberal activist. I explained to the couple that I was a free lance writer and analyst. On the spot, they searched for and found this blog.

We talked about current politics and a few other things. Both were clearly inclined to the Liberal Party. "You must join the Young Liberals", said the friendly campaign worker. It would be unfair to give the detail of the conversation, it was a private conversation, but it actually was fun.

It all reminded me of a very important thing about Australian  politics. This rests on a volunteer bedrock who try to persuade others. It doesn't matter whether or not you agree, but you must respect their views for they care.

And for my friendly couple in case they come back to this blog? Do enjoy your three honeymoons! I wish you every happiness and success for your life together. I think that you will make a great go of it.      

Down with school - Latin lost or, in my case, never found!

In my post on on Denis Wright (Denis Wright's ten life rules) I mentioned the Latin phrase Carpe Diem. This led to a response from a friend, JC, that I brought up as a postscript and now quote again in full:

A friend advised me that the phrase comes from Horace Odes Bk 1;No. 11 -The Latin reads: dum loquimur fugerit invida aetas/ carpe diem quam minimum credula postero. Now for those like me who have either done no Latin or forgotten whatever they learned, she also supplied an English translation:  "While we speak, envious time will have fled. Suck everything out of today, don't waste your belief in the time to come."

There you have it, adult education care of JC. I must tell you about my final failed attempt at Elementary Latin some time.

This led Evan to comment that he did one term of Latin in high school. The one phrase that
he could remember from from the period was "the elephant doesn't catch the mouse".

Now I note that Evan did not provide the Latin, just the English. Mmmm, as another friend might say, but I'm in no position to talk. The Latin that I failed to learn far exceeds the Latin that I have forgotten! Mind you, I do remember if only one set of sentences that I had to translate into Latin while doing Elementary Latin. "The sailors landed on the shore. The sailors followed the girls into the caves. The farmers chased the sailors from the cave." In those more chaste days, we were never asked to translate what might have happened in the middle.

kvd took a different track:

Well, to be sure, I had thought that JC spoke Aramaic - if not Hebrew - but if you say Latin, then who am I, etc.

My Latin was learned over four years whilst drearily trudging around Britain, in company with JC (the other one); as he subjugated, I conjugated. And I continue my interest via Blackadder's lackey, as he digs up various bits of olde England with shovel and 'geo-phys'.

But the end result was good, or at least ok: I scored an A as one of six in the SC, but was left wondering to this day why a word such as posterity (something about the future) can in any way be associated with one's bottom (posterior). Can your personal JC ellucidate?

All of which is to ignore the main point of your post about a fellow whose continuing sang-froid I much admire. Except I think that's actually french, so I guess you'd better consult another JC - Jacques Cousteau.

(There's an awful lot of these JC's floating around - no?)

I had no choice but to study Latin, It was compulsory for the first three years of secondary school. Oh dear, conjugation. Do I still remember what it means? Not sure. By the third year, or 5A as it was called in the nomenclature of the time, I was meant to be able to translate Latin. Unlike kvd who trudged around Britain with that other JC, I was at least in warmer climes. But I fear that my attempts to make sense of Caesar's The Alexandrian Wars were, at best, imperfect. Sad but true and to the frustration of my teachers, Messrs Mattingly, Rupp and Kitley.

Now one of the phrases from the period that had a certain resonance was "Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres". All right, I take mercy. It means "All Gaul is divided into three parts" and comes from Caesar's Gallic Wars.  In this case I'm being a bit naughty in giving you a link to the original. Busy man, that Caesar.

Why should this have a certain resonance. Well, one of my favourite books from the period was Ronald Searle's Down with Skool!, a book that sometimes had a striking resemblance to an institution with which I was familiar. The book includes a series of cartoons showing an increasingly battered pair - a Roman and a Gaul - trudging past each other in, I think, the Alps.

Years later in second year university. friend Brian persuaded me to enrol in Elementary Latin as an extra. Although I got my marks up to (from memory) the low thirties, this was not one of my academic successes. It remains the only university course that I ever failed. By contrast, it proved a considerable vocational success for Brian, needless to say he passed well, for years later he would go on to become a Roman Catholic priest.

Still, it wasn't all wasted from my viewpoint. There were only two of us in the class. the classes were quite fun, and our tutor (Peter T) proved to be a pretty good cook.

Postscript.

Neil drew my attention to this post, 1957 or MCMLVII. It starts with Caesar's Gallic Wars. Apparently, Latin was Neil's third teaching subject.

Denis Wright's ten life rules

Last week, our fellow blogger and in my case fellow New Englander Denis Wright's ten lessons of life featured in a news.com.au story, Life lessons from terminal cancer patient Denis Wright. Now it appears that the ten lessons have gone global, especially in South America.

I often refer to Denis's blog.  He and I met when I was a posgrad back at the University of New England. He writes with humour and a gentle philosophical flavour.

One of the posts that I enjoyed was the story of his and Tracey's somewhat belated wedding, The wedding advice I wish we'd had. I chose this photo from that post (News used another) because of the laughter.

One of Denis's favourite phases is the Latin Carpe Diem. literally seize or enjoy the day. I have to be reminded or remind myself of that from time to time.

I don't know about you, but I find that daily concerns and pressures tend to crowd out the moment. Something to remember.

Goals are important, I have too many of them, but sometimes just to live is no bad thing. 

Postscript

A friend advised me that the phrase comes from Horace Odes Bk 1;No. 11 -The Latin reads: dum loquimur fugerit invida aetas/ carpe diem quam minimum credula postero. Now for those like me who have either done no Latin or forgotten whatever they learned, she also supplied an English translation:  "While we speak, envious time will have fled. Suck everything out of today, don't waste your belief in the time to come."

There you have it, adult education care of JC. I must tell you about my final failed attempt at Elementary Latin some time. 

The importance of representative democracy

Tonight I listened to Tony Abbott saying that the Australian people elect the Prime Minister. They don't, nor should they if you want to maintain our current system of Government.

Maybe you don't so, so present your alternative.

In our system, Parliament is the supreme being. Parliament appoints the Prime Minister by awarding confidence. It is Parliament that stands between us and the overbearing coercive power of Executive Government.

In a comment, kvd provided this quote from Edmund Burke:

"Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion" - 

This pretty well captures my own position. I come from a particular populist tradition, New England populism, but it's a tradition that combines populism with a powerful belief in Parliament.

When I come to vote at the next election, I will not be voting for either Messrs Abbott or Rudd. Indeed, if I could I would be highly unlikely to do so! I am voting for my local member of the House of Representatives and my possible representatives in the Senate. I may take Party issues into account in that vote, but I am not voting for a Party nor, heaven forbid, for a leader. I don't actually need a leader. Sorry about that.

What do I expect from my local member? I expect them to represent their electorate, to try to meet the needs of their constituents in the most basic sense. I expect them to respect Parliament, to be prepared to act honestly and to explain to me what they have done and why. If I don't like their position and regard that as very important, then I can vote against them next time,

I accept that they are probably a member of a Party and wish to advance the interests of that Party. I accept that this requires compromises, that on many issue things are not black and white, that compromises have to be made.

I do not expect my MP to be an intellectual genius, nor do I judge him as a future leader or manager. That's not his first role, although he may be both leader and manager. I accept that Party structures are a useful practical device in terms of the practical working of Parliament, the articulation of alternative ideals, the specification of alternative views on policy.

I do not accept that people should be selected just on the grounds of their potential contribution to the future of the party or to Executive Government. I want them because they are human, understanding, sometimes confused, can help set value frameworks. I don't expect them to be intellectual giants, I am happy to accept that they have personal failings.

The Prime Minister's role is not to run the country. He or she can't. It's too complicated. The PM's core role is to help articulate a framework. We have lots of good public servants who can develop and implement policies once the frame is set. 

Governments cannot be trusted. Sorry, but it's true. They form a view of what is right, it's called the national or public interest, and then try to drive that through. But that national or public interest is a very slippery concept. Over history, it has been used to justify many rather nasty things.

In all this, we rely on Parliament as our bulwark, the thing that tempers. That's why I support representative democracy.

Postscript

Winton Bates  put up a companion post to this one, Do Australians elect the prime minister?. I actually disagree most profoundly. Can you see why?