David Flint, and what this country needs is a jolly good spanking ...

(Above: a proposed way forward for concerned citizens, voters and monarchists).

Usually Monday would be a fine day to frolic amongst the festering adjectives, lingering adverbs and metaphysical musings of David Burchell.

But he's off with the pixies, wallowing in a mystical way in the meaning of Athenian democracy, with Forget the vision thing, Labor must learn to listen, which might be a way to fill in time while the independents make up their minds but provides little brain food for an intertubes full to overflowing with thought bubbles on the actual ways the Athenians did their democratic thing (slaves and batteries not included).

Burchell seems to think democracy's either a religious rite, or a kind of divine jest, leaving a solid role for himself as a Don Quixote tilting at fevered windmills.

No, a far better way to waste your time and ruin your brain cells is the splendid offering by David Flint, punching on in The Punch with Trivial independents miss chance at making history.

Flint leads with his chin in his usual way:

A hung parliament is a golden opportunity for serious reform. The independents should not waste their extraordinary power on ephemeral trivia such as the black holes issue. (This is essentially about whether Treasury’s long term predictions are reliable. They are not.)

Uh huh. Never mind the budget or all the pious cant about a return to surplus. Who cares? We need to get cracking on serious issues.

Now what's a really serious issue? Why, it's turning Australia in to Switzerland, or perhaps even worse, the United States, where citizens' referenda have managed to reduce budgeting, politics, and civics to a perilous level of bankruptcy:

The best example of direct democracy is in Switzerland, the country from which our Founding Fathers based the provision for our constitutional referendums. New Zealand has tried unsuccessfully to go down the Swiss. The problem is that a referendum called by a petition of electors under the misleadingly named Citizens Initiated Referenda Act, 1993 is not at all binding on the politicians.

Uh huh. Never mind that Australians have regularly found referendums not to their taste, and have regularly refused to pass them. Only 8 out of 44 proposed since 1906 have got up, and only then the most obvious ones, such as the matter of actually recognising that Aboriginal people are people rather than another kind of fauna who could actually be counted for statistical purposes. (here).

Instead let's look at the kind of non-trivial ultra meaningful policy matters that might be considered by way of citizens referenda:

In 2009, as a result of a petition under this law, New Zealanders were asked “Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?”

In a postal ballot 87.40% voted No and 11.98% voted Yes.

But the National, Labor and the Green parties refused to support a private member’s bill introduced by ACT MP John Boscawen legalising smacking. Such is direct democracy in New Zealand.

Aw, does that mean we can't give Flint a good smacking for being particularly silly?

That particular New Zealand frolic was a fine old farce, as noted in its very own wiki here.

[The question] "could have been written by Dr Seuss – this isn't Green Eggs and Ham, this is yes means no and no means yes, but we're all meant to understand what the referendum means. I think it's ridiculous myself." ” —Prime Minister John Key

Of course the way any question is framed is significant, and the Kiwi effort was a particularly excellent exercise in 'when did you stop beating your wife' phraseology.

Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?

Note the loaded use of "good" in "good parental correction", as opposed to it being a "criminal offence", as opposed to the question of whether smacking is a good way to produce a sensible response in children, as opposed to other methods of parenting and correction.

Never mind, in the manner of Flint, we'll just take the headline, and return to our very own Dr. Suess:

They should do something for which they will be immortalised in the nation’s pantheon. They should propose fundamental reform to our system of government, making it more democratic.

Hmm, that's not such a bad idea. How about this for a question?

When the man who aspired to being a tampon gets to be King of England, should we continue with the wretch as King of Australia, or avoid his humbug about modern architecture?

Loaded. Pshaw, just seeking to determine the will of the people:

Why do the people have to wait three or four years to pass judgement on a failed government? Why shouldn’t they block a law they do not like?

Yep, with a bit of luck we could end up like California or Arizona (and it's a pity that Ken Silverstein's wild and wacky Tea party in the Sonora: For the future of G.O.P. governance, look to Arizona is behind the Harpers paywall).

Flint's idea of good governance is of course exactly like that of the hippies, who wanted open never ending discussions, committees, everybody participating and active and involved, and the result generally was petulance and a few power brokers who used the ensuing power vacuums and ennui to take charge of affairs ...

The result? Most likely the kind of rhetoric and rage that immediately filled The Punch's comments section. But then Flint is only wheeled out, tottering and doddering in his defiant British monarchist way, to stir the possums, and get them agitated and clicking. Every time I read him, I imagine the Major hunting for rats in Fawlty Towers ...

At the heart of the piece is populist fear mongering about politicians, done in the sublime expectation that if given half a chance, the majority of the population would vote the same way as Flint. That dream kind of dudded itself, deflated like a two bob watch, at the recent election.

You see, direct democracy would see independents in abundance, doing independent things, but that leads to four year terms and to Flint outrage:

The independents also sacked one of the best financial controllers the State has had in living memory - Nick Greiner. They did this on the basis of an ICAC ruling, one which the Supreme Court overruled.

What's really got up Flint's nose is the way his team - just like bloody Manly - almost got across the line, and now, knowing that even if the independents fell into line, there'd be no way there can be the usual ritual blood letting of checking up on what the other mob has been up to, and so there can only be dreams of revenge:

A budget office would have marginal utility, but what not do something serious and insist on a Royal Commission into the BER? After all investigative journalists conclude this involved the diversion and loss of over $5 to $8 billion dollars of taxpayers’ hard earned money – surely the biggest financial scandal in our nation’s history.

Childish delusional fantasies which deserve a good spanking. Raking over old coals instead of ... moving forward.

Then it's on to fighting the last election all over again - the NBN, roof insulation, did we mention the NBN, financial assessments, plundered funds, and of course the difficulty of getting agreement amongst the independents. So much simpler if everyone were simply allowed a wildcat vote, on the proviso they vote Flint's way.

And which way would that be?

It is difficult to see the independents agreeing on policy in most areas. Everyone knows where Bob Katter stands. He asks why, when it comes to agriculture, we are almost alone in the world in our pristine adherence to the universally agreed principles of free trade which our trading partners ignore. He deserves an answer.

Ahoy matey, agrarian socialists heaving into view. But of course some socialism is good, and other socialism baaad:

Rob Oakeshott (who says he went into the Federal Parliament because of me) seems to favour a series of far left policies on such matters as illegal immigrants or asylum seekers, and on a carbon price. When he was questioned about this by 2GB’s Ray Hadley, he said this was all on his website. If they are there, they are impossible to find. It is difficult to assume the voters of Lyne were aware when they elected him where he stands on such issues.

Which leads to a conundrum. If the voters were aware and voted him in, this wretched far left monster, well and good, and be warned David Flint, you might be first sent to the gulag for reformation. But if they weren't aware and voted him, would you want this bunch of no hoper ill informed ignorant citizens exercising more votes in referenda?

Why yes you do. It seems the mug punters might have mucked it up with Oakeshott, so let them vote away, all guns blazing.

That apart, the independents could agree on fundamental reforms about the way we are governed. They could start with the introduction of a good dollop of direct democracy.

It seems that direct democracy has many charms, not least that it will prevent excessive power accruing to parties, though strangely enough Flint doesn't seem to be worried about the excessive power accruing to miners willing to buy advertising space in the Murdoch rags, or billionaires waging political wars with a cashed up war chest (and to see how that's done, take a read of Jane Mayer's Covert Operations, The billionaire brothers who are waging a war against Obama, in The New Yorker).

You see, when it comes to abuse, it's only a one way Marxist Leninist street:

There is a powerful reason for introducing direct democracy. It is to lessen the excessive power the parties have accrued since federation, something not envisaged by our Founding Fathers. One of the worst features of party control is the Caucus Pledge. This is such a Leninist tool, it was never adopted by the UK Labor Party, even when it was attempting to seize the commanding heights of the British economy. The caucus pledge means that Labor politicians must obey those in control. Under Kevin Rudd, it led to the Gang of Four making not only Caucus, but even the cabinet, impotent. This result was entirely consistent with the way the so-called “democratic centralism” worked among the Bolsheviks.

Oh dear, another seizure, another bout of Bolsheviks and Mensheviks, so let's hear it for the Tsars. Won't someone give a cheer for bonnie Prince Charlie?

Meanwhile, if you think the current impasse is a danger to stability and good management, try Flint's prescription for fixing things:

The independents should consider a paper on the history of direct democracy in Australia by Joseph Poprzeczny, aptly entitled “Australia — a democracy or just another ballotocracy?” (yes, if you truly have a taste for the arcane, you can find it here in pdf format).

They should also look at the “100 Days campaign” by the New Zealand writer and commentator Amy Brooke. She proposes any legislation not take effect for 100 days. Then if 50,000 citizens were concerned enough to sign a petition during that period, a referendum would have to be called and the country’s verdict would be binding.

50,000 on any legislation, and then it's referendum time! Well I suppose that'd be great for enthusiastic devotees of the joys of a good spanking, for children or perhaps for adults as well...

The independents could propose a similar process for Australia, extending it to subordinate legislation by the executive and even significant interpretations of the constitution and the law by the courts. This should also include a right of recall of any and all MP’s. This would be a vote on whether there should be another election or by-election.

Yes, yes, let anarchy and spankings reign throughout the land, recall everyone and everything, overturn this and that, turn the country into a tea party, and then we'll need someone strong and upright, an antipodean Franco, to take a firm grip and set things right. I'm sure modesty, a gentle blush, would prevent hero Flint from anything except a deprecatory wave of the hand, but you must see - oh say can't you see - that he would be the hero of and for the hour ...

Surely he can lead the country out of the bolshevik independent mire in which it has freely and willingly, by way of vote, bogged itself?

Well it's a big agenda, not that we want to follow in the footsteps of the United States, and see the citizens with too much power:

This proposal is not for CIR’s to initiate new legislation, especially those providing that percentages of the budget must be applied to prescribed areas. Measures like these in the US have been the most criticised form of CIR’s.

No, no, they'd need a firm hand, a guiding light, always willing to administer a light spanking to help with discipline and finding a way forward:

Another reform would be to restore the federation. Australia is, fiscally speaking, the most centralised federation in the world, and that leads to poor state governments and bossy intervening federal ones.

But how to do it? Surely the monarchists have a solution:

The independents can’t correct this immediately. But the 1893 Corowa process designed by Sir John Quick which after all led to federation might just do. This would involve a convention for which the 1998 Howard model would work best, provided its terms of reference were restricted to this issue. Meeting over say a year, with delegates unpaid, there would have to be clear undertaking that its proposals would be put to a popular vote. The independents could perform a singular service in asking for this.

Yes, yes, that John Howard thingie showed how it's done. Polls suggesting the majority wanted a Republic, so split the vote between the direct election and the appointment mob, and then keep on with the monarchy as should have happened all along. Franco would have been proud ...

But really that's still not enough. Surely there'd only be a singular service if they asked, nay demanded, that Flint be the chair of such an august boy. Because that's the only way to take this country on the path to a non-trivial spanking led recovery:

Rather than short term trivia, the independents should be thinking of the long term- more particularly giving the people a greater say in running their country.

Indeed. Now if you'll pardon me, "Aye aye Cap'n Flint, now Darby McGraw, fetch aft the rum ... I feel in need of a drink and some pieces of eight ..."

(Below: yes, direct democracy, and buried treasure, all contained in this map, with explanatory footnotes in case punters get lost as they trudge towards Eldorado).