Jay Said:

Is Britain really broken or is Cam just a sham?

We Answered:

Yes it is broken

Mae Said:

What do you think of Australia's hung parliament?

We Answered:

First, I think that it ought to be clear that neither major party can claim an obvious mandate. *Both* sides lost this time. The only real winners were the Greens, who had a huge increase in their primary vote in both houses and now have balance of power in the Senate and their first MP in the House of Reps.

It will indeed be interesting times ahead. A hung parliament doesn't necessarily mean unstable government, though with a Greens MP, a rogue National from WA who doesn't acknowledge the Coalition, and probably four independents (one ex-Green but still green, three ex-National but who all hate the Nats), it could get complicated.

I've been impressed by Oakeshott, especially in this interview
http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2010/08…

And I like this analysis from Gittens:
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/r…

Bruce Said:

Does global warming threaten our democracies?

We Answered:

I don't have a clue what's going to happen anymore.

In the USA, Democrats have majorities in the House, Senate, and they have the Presidency. A majority of Americans support a carbon cap and trade system. A majority even support it if it raises their electrical bills $10 per month. Polls have consistently shown this support. We just had a major oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. It's the hottest year on record. There are massive heat waves along the US East Coast. One of the President's main campaign issues was to enact a carbon cap and trade system. It seems like a perfect storm to get a climate bill passed, and yet once again, they failed. For the fourth time. It's just hard to fathom. What is it going to take for us to get climate legislation?

As you note, the problem is that we don't live in a democracy. If we did, we'd have a strong climate bill. Instead, 41 Republicans and a handful of fossil fuel-funded Democrats obstructed the legislation. The minority held our government hostage. What's worse, the Democrats didn't even make them filibuster. That really bugs me - a 41% minority can just say "we're going to filibuster" and they get their way. The Dems are spineless - make them stand up there and read the phone book for days on end. Don't just cave at the mere threat, that's just begging them to continue to abuse our government. It's so frustrating. In an election, a 59-41% win is a landslide. In the Senate, 41% acts like a majority. It's insane.

That's not even the worst part. Americans realize that our government isn't working properly, as the Romans did. Rather than put a dictator in charge, our solution is to elect more Republican politicians. The very people who created the mess we're in. The very people who are blocking every effort to solve the problems we're facing. The very people who offer no constructive suggestions of their own. That's how stupid we've become. The system is broken, and now we're going to light it on fire and dance around it like crazed maniacs. Republicans are firing rifles at their own soldiers, and now we're going to give them missile launchers.

Honestly I would much prefer an intelligent dictator with a well-informed advisory staff. It's not going to happen - Americans love to believe that we have this great democracy which is the envy of the world. That egotism played a big role in justifying the war in Iraq. We're going to spread our great democracy to the Middle East! Yeah, that worked out great.

Our republic is already broken, not because of global warming, but rather it's going to prevent us from addressing global warming. I'm just at a loss right now. We gave Democrats control of the government, and Republicans still found a way to obstruct progress. And now we brilliant Americans are going to reward them for it. A republic can't work if one of the parties is rewarded for abusing the system and preventing majority rule.

But our system isn't going to change. Americans also think it's patriotic to keep everything just the way it is. Trying to improve the way our country operates is considered unpatriotic. Several times deniers on this site have criticized me because I 'don't say anything good about America'. There are a lot of good things about our country, but there are a lot of bad things too. I want to fix them, but it's just not going to happen. I think America is on the decline, like the final days of the Roman Empire.

It's almost funny, if it weren't so pathetic. Obama was elected on a message of change. As soon as he tried to enact that change, he was labeled a socialist. In another answer, CO2 Expeller said he voted for Obama, but didn't realize he was going to increase the scope of government. WTF? That's exactly what he said he would do! Universal health care and a carbon cap and trade system - that's what we were promised, and that's the platform we elected him on. Just goes to show how intelligent the American voter is. Now they think the Tea Party is the change they want. Crazy libertarians like Sharron Angle who want to shut the government down completely.

Ultimately there are several problems. We would be fine if not for the filibuster rule in the Senate, but that prevents majority rule. On top of that, we have an extremely uninformed public which seems to vote for 'change' without understanding what they're voting for. We also have a popular right-wing media which is badly misinforming the public. And Democrats sadly are utterly spineless, except a few like Nancy Pelosi, who actually did manage to get cap and trade passed through the House. As Paul says, our government wasn't built for modern day problems, and the public isn't informed enough to figure out what the problems are and who's going to fix them.

Cody Said:

Cha-Cha after Arroyo's Administration?

We Answered:

YES I agree with you that charter change should be done after only the term of Arroyo's administration so that to prevent this greedy administration for extension.

Alvin Said:

What party are the Independents likely to support in order to form the new Australian government and why?

We Answered:

Intuitively, one would expect them to side with the Coalition. But in all the circumstances, I wouldn't be at all surprised if they went with the ALP.
If they were just going to go with the Coalition because they're conservative, or because it's what their electorates probably want, then why is it taking them so long to decide? They knew those things from day one, so evidently those factors are not sufficient to make them decide in favour of the Coalition. So I think it makes sense to begin with the premise that they are genuinely considering both parties.

If you look at what the independents have been saying, they have all consistently stressed the importance of two things above all others: stable government and improved inter-party cooperation. So which party can provide the more stable government? Well the Coalition can only just get to 76 seats, including the WA Nationals member who says he's sitting on the cross benches. So the Coalition can offer only the smallest conceivable majority in the House of Representatives. If any one of those 76 crosses the floor, or if there's a by-election, their government could collapse. Plus, we know the Greens will hold the balance of power in the Senate next year, which is likely to mean that a Coalition government would face a hostile Senate.
The ALP, on the other hand, would have 77 if they got the support of the remaining three independents. Still a very narrow majority, certainly, but losing the support of just one member won't destabilise their government. And clearly the ALP have a better relationship with the Greens, so they would cope better with a Greens-controlled Senate.

In terms of cooperation between the parties, I think it's fair to say that some animosity is present and will remain for the foreseeable future. Nonetheless, there is a definite difference in their approaches here. During the election campaign, the Coalition focused almost exclusively on criticising Julia Gillard and the Labor government. Even their official campaign launch was mostly used as an opportunity to demonise Julia and Labor, with very little discussion of actual Coalition policies. Now, while the independents are all promoting the importance of bipartisanship, Tony Abbott is still relentlessly attacking the ALP. His strategy for attracting the independents appears to be to argue that the ALP are dangerous and incompetent; obviously that's not a productive attitude if you want to work together.
The ALP have certainly been involved in their own fair share of mudslinging, but not to anything like the same extent. Their focus has been on their own advantages, like the NBN, rather than the Coalition's disadvantages.

And of course one must consider this controversy over the Coalition's costings. If Tony Abbott had submitted his costings to Treasury before the election, and voters had gone into the booths knowing what they know now, then it's likely that the ALP would have won a majority in its own right. The fact that he withheld this information for so long can only suggest that he was aware of the discrepancies.

If it is accepted that the independents were open to the possibility of supporting a Labor government, then I find it hard to see how they would now decide otherwise. By the independents' own account, stability and cooperation are the main issues affecting their choice. And on both points the ALP would seem to be the clear favourite. Even now, Tony Abbott is resisting the adoption of parliamentary reforms designed to make the process less adversarial — reforms to which the ALP has agreed. So if there was ever a chance of siding with Labor, that is surely what is going to happen.

Milton Said:

Is the Green Party like a Water melon? Green on the Outside, Red inside?

We Answered:

Yes, and the party is now old enough that the core is rotten.