The main political parties in the House of Representatives. The Country Party was formed in , renamed the National Country Party in , the National Party of Australia in , and since has been known as the Nationals.
Since the general election of , the Liberal Party and the Nationals under various names when forming government have done so as a coalition. Minor parties and independents. Since the general election in the other parties represented in the House have been:. Most Parliaments since have also had a Member from the Northern Territory based Country Liberal Party; however this party has been part of the Liberal—Nationals coalition.
In recent Parliaments there have been up to six independent Members elected or Members of minor parties elected. Significant parties historically. Parties and the operation of the House of Representatives. Parliamentary activity involves the parliamentary wings of the political parties—that is, the elected representatives. The extra-parliamentary or organisational wings of the political parties have no role in the formal parliamentary structure and workings of the Parliament.
Political parties are not formally recognised in the standing orders of the House. However, in many respects the functioning of the House is based on the relationship between government and opposition—that is, the opposing political parties.
The working arrangements and conduct of business reflect this division. Another example is the practice that opportunities for Members to speak in the House are alternated between government and non-government Members. Party meetings. The major parties have designated party rooms in Parliament House. Parties have meetings in sitting weeks, usually at times when the House is not sitting, where all members of the party in the Parliament that is, Senators and Members meet together.
These meetings are a forum for communication between backbenchers and party leaders, internal party discussion of party policy, parliamentary activity and tactics, the resolution of internal party disputes and the election of officers. The proceedings of party meetings are regarded as confidential, and details of discussions are not normally made public. Party committees. Both the government and the opposition parties have backbench committees to assist them in the consideration of legislative proposals and other issues of political significance.
These committees provide backbenchers with the opportunity to discuss matters and influence party policy or decisions in particular subject areas. Party whips. With so many people in this country thinking only about themselves, maybe we've got the system that we deserve. Where the most talented and intelligent people in this country don't go into politics where we need them, but stick to the private sector because it pays far better.
So despite what you might tell other people that you care about this election, and even what you tell yourself, remember the truth. You voted for the Liberal Party because you believe that if you have money, you deserve a better life.
That some humans are worth more than others. Or your voted Labor because you have hope for a better world. And are prepared to be disappointed. Yet again. Sorry Dad, but please don't worry. I haven't changed my mind about anything important.
Xavier Toby is a writer and comedian. You can tweet him here , Facebook him here , check out his website here or see him at the Sydney Fringe from Sep 6 to 15 and the Melbourne Fringe from Sep 20 to Oct 5. The real difference between Liberal and Labor. Please try again later. The Sydney Morning Herald. By Xavier Toby September 11, — 8. Save Log in , register or subscribe to save articles for later.
Normal text size Larger text size Very large text size. If you voted Liberal, you're selfish. Labor, you want to waste money. Liberal, you have no hope for society. Labor, you have hope, and can cope with disappointment.
Liberal, you think stuff everyone else, my money is for me. Against that what is the point of being in office if you are unable to do what you want, to hold true to your principles. Equally there is nothing like a common enemy to unite your own troops and to hold onto their loyalty and to motivate them in their campaigns.
However, how could this still be a convincing message after the Liberals, or at least some of them, had spent so long working in close collaboration with the ex-enemy? Was the lure of power convincing them to sacrifice some sort of liberal principal? Was this true for the Liberal Party as a whole, for the Lloyd George faction or for a handful of individual Liberals? Turning to particular areas of policy, and even if it is not possible here to analyse in depth the whole range of policies, can we seek to identify what was specifically liberal or specific to the Liberal Party in them and ask if the Liberals ever lived up to their own ideas or principles even if we — or the Liberals at the time - can or could agree on what they were?
Although this can be no more than a brief overview of the actual policies of the various Liberal governments it quickly becomes apparent that it is difficult to identify specifically and distinct policies. In practice, however, we can see how successive Liberal administrations supported the Entente Cordiale, and therefore indirectly an alliance with Tsarist Russia, which ineluctably drew Britain into the system of European alliances that was to end so catastrophically in Equally, the secret military agreements signed with France before , had they been more widely known, would no doubt have horrified many Liberals.
After , both Liberal factions defended an internationalism, with its support for the League of Nations, the rejection of the old style of diplomacy, support for democracy and national self-determination in Europe but on this issue where was the difference with the policies of Labour or the Conservatives?
As has often been underlined it was the experience of war in that was so damaging to liberal principles. The long list of illiberal policies imposed by the successful pursuit of the war effort and the compromises introduced by the Liberal lead administrations of Asquith and Lloyd George simply tore the heart out of many fundamental liberal principles. On all these issues, and many others, where does the true liberalism lie? Who were the true Liberals and what was true Liberalism?
How did either differ from the Conservatives and Labour? Is liberalism what the Liberals do? Or is there a genuine liberal message that can be found here somewhere? If there is indeed an agreed true version of the liberal message on which side of these particular debates does it lie? Liberalism always meant different things to different Liberals. Many individual Liberals found the cross-over either to the Conservatives or to the Labour Party relatively painless and many found new political homes and many prospered there.
The new political grouping of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats looks almost seamless at times now, something which may be regarded in a positive light as regards the effective functioning of government but which raises serious difficulties for the parties involved. If so were the differences as great as appeared at times before the formation of this coalition? Similarly were the differences between the Liberals and the Conservatives before so great?
Were the sometimes virulent attacks made by some Liberals on the Conservatives over social policy, the reform of the House of Lords and the many other issues that dominated the political debate of that decade not so deeply rooted as appeared? Or was this more a question of political rhetoric, a tactic destined to score political points? This idea is supported by the fact that Lloyd George was contemplating redrawing the lines of British party politics at the same time as he was virulently attacking the Conservatives.
It could, of course, be argued that there was as much confusion and lack of coherence, perhaps of political honesty or ideological consistency, in the Labour and Conservative Parties as there was in the Liberal Party. A sign of a pragmatism and an ability to transcend the confrontational dividing lines of politics? Was it the basic problem or part of a possible solution?
However, while not coming down off the fence may sometimes be advantageous it cannot be carried on indefinitely.
This approach may allow difficult policy choices to be avoided and may allow a party to appeal to various, perhaps mutually antagonistic, constituencies by leaning one way and then to the other, to left and to right, or by constantly balance between the two. Alternatively we could perhaps reject such a one-dimensional, linear, left-right, interpretation and argue that there exists a different plane, neither left nor right with the Liberals nobly standing above the left-right political fray.
But what of maintaining a clearly identifiable set of political principles, Liberal or other, in such a pragmatic approach? Is the end result a political compromise or a compromised politics?
But this stance was always more difficult to maintain when it came to outlining a plan or a project for the future. Perhaps Liberalism is ill-suited to be a political party and better suited to be a broad movement, a pressure group, exercising influence in a more diffuse fashion over all the mainstream political parties. Liberalism, in this view, was an inherent part of British civilization while he condemned socialism and all forms of totalitarianism as essentially un-English.
In fact the process could be seen as more widespread than a one-way transfer of liberal ideas beyond the Liberal Party and the question may be asked as to who was stealing whose clothes? Who was left as the Emperor parading naked at the end, still claiming to be wearing a certain and distinctive ideological style but in fact wearing a rather unconvincing combination of second-hand or hand me downs, a mishmash of off the peg, one size fits all, and ultimately ill assorted and unattractive set of clothes?
From the early radical Welsh firebrand, to leading statesman of reform, to war leader and ardent defender of the national British cause, to post-war collaborator with some of the most reactionary elements in British politics to later day proto-Keynesian, which one is the true Lloyd George? The Liberal Party as a whole seemed to offer many of these different images over the period from to — and to present many of them simultaneously with their different strands of thought, and rival personal allegiances and loyalties.
A coat of many colours, a blend of different materials interwoven into an attractive and hard-wearing and resistant pattern; assembled into a well-cut set of clothes, or a patchwork coming apart at the seams?
Liberalism as an ideology certainly leaves much room for a party identity, perhaps too much room.
0コメント