Spindoc;

I was disappointed not to get more of a response in the form of discussion. As a writer it's always rewarding to provoke meaningful debate. On the other hand the article's been showing as one of the most read... So - I still think people are reading the material... And therefore I don't think I've 'had it' as you put it.

Re: your argument about 'opposition being a threat'. I'm a liberal as well as a democrat and a socialist. Pluralism is part of a legitimate liberal democracy. But part of that picture is taking on the politics and the arguments of one's rivals.

You'll note I think it would be a good thing were 'compassionate conservatism' to prevail over 'ruthless neo-liberalism' in the parties of the Australian Right.

Neo-liberalism wasn't always in a hegemonic position in Australia - including in the parties of the Australian Right.

And I think it is perfectly legitimate to argue the case there there are some areas where there should therefore be bipartisan consensus. (a fair and just tax system, a welfare safety net which does not condemn the vulnerable to poverty, meaningful protections for workers, a mixed economy)

Most of these prevailed even under Menzies. Why therefore is it that there are so many on the Australian Right who cannot conceive of a politics - on that side - beyond the confines of what I call 'ruthless neo-liberalism'?

Pelican;

I agree that an Abbott government could in many ways be very bad for workers. From reading his book in great detail I was struck by how many times he played upon the 'union bogey'. And he's on record as saying "the WORD WorkChoices is gone". I think it's reasonable to assume from this that the Conservatives want as much of the substance of WorkChoices to 'make a comeback' as they can manage.

On the other hand - the debates which take place on the Australian Right matter a lot to us. Usually there is an area of bi-partisan consensus beyond which the main parties in Australia won't venture. (Although I take the point that both the ALP and the Libs purused privatisation when there was very little support for this amongst the public...)

For instance - Medicare is part of that 'consensus' - and while some would like to undermine it directly, they do not dare...

But also remember - centralised wage fixing, progressive tax, a mixed economy: were once part of a bipartisan consensus also...

That said: if Abbott presses a paradigm - 'compassionate conservatism' - as he says - 'in solidarity with those doing it tough' - this influences the level of political exchange in this country... It could ultimately mean bipartisan consensus on issues like: 'a fair welfare safety net'; and "stronger minimum protections for the lowest paid'.

When the field of 'bipartisan consensus' shifts in this way - it's a victory for progressives; and indeed ANYONE concerned with the rights of the vulnerable...

That said: personally I'm still a socialist, liberal and democrat. But again - the level of debate taking place on the broad Australian Right affects us - and thus we have an interest...

nb: One last point for now - I don't know that Abbott HAS embraced 'compassionate conservatism' as opposed to 'ruthless neo-liberalism'.
As I write in my review - 'ruthless neo-liberalism' is still the dominant tendency in the Australian Right.

But from my perspective it would be a good thing if a shift did take place here - even though I can't personally see myself voting Conservative in 100 years :)) ...

From a progressive perspective - it is a good thing for the area of 'bi-partisan consensus' to expand to include many areas that are important to you.

That said: such a shift need not be considered a 'defeat' either from a 'compassionate conservative' perspective. Here there would be areas of convergence - but still plenty of room elsewhere for rivalry...

Tristan, you’re a what? << I'm a liberal as well as a democrat and a socialist >>? Then a << socialist, liberal and democrat >> and a << long-time member of the Socialist Left of the Australian Labor Party (ALP) and you blog at Left Focus? It’s a pity Pauline Hansen is going overseas, she could ask you for a please explain?

No, really, please don’t explain, you’ll do my head in.

I think you’re right though, your thread has finally kicked off, good luck. I’m just off to find some Max Weber and Karl Marx so I can brush up on my socialist-babble.

“compassionate conservatism”, “ruthless neo-liberalism”, “meaningful protections for workers”, “centralized wage fixing”, “progressive tax”, “legitimate liberal democracy”, “ideologues”, “solidarity”, “social fabric”, “socially-illiberal”, “compassion for workers” “social justice” “crush the union movement”, “human dimension”, punitive welfare”, “vulnerable to poverty”.

Yep, it’s all there, coming along nicely Tristan, keep going.

I agree, Spindoc. There are too many labels.

Tristan, There's too much philosophising in what you say for my liking. I feel like I'm being smothered (ie deadened) when I read your stuff.

To make a difference in this world, you must call a spade a spade. Even though I don't think Australia would be best served with Abbott as PM, he is at least a breath of fresh air ready to say what many down-to-earth types have known forever, but which Governments have been loathe to acknowledge. That's where the real action is if you truly want to start effecting change. Until that happens, you can go on and on as you do and it won't make an ounce of difference.

I trust spindoc will eventually find his head, comparatively observed, it may be like looking for the rest of the needle in the haystack.

As I indicated in my 1st posts Tristan, the potential paradigm for change required in facing the current and future challenges we face, may potentially, as undoubtedly, require both bi partisan consensus of approach, and a new paradigm for its basis, by all political parties, relevant to that requirement. For example, currently we have a Family First member retaining influence of the balance of power in Govt.

The question is whether that will may prevail, for resistance and intransigence to such prospect may only observe distancing of our ability to meet the time lines of such requirement.

Personally I’m not holding my breath, for demonstration of both Federal political leaders currently, does not inspire confidence of their grasp or capacity for these key issues, that they appear still engrossed with their political machinations. Although its patently clear Rudd is much nearer the competence capability than Abbott.

For without key economic reform relevant to management application, and its paradigm cultural change required, other reforms are observed unsustainable. This is not rocket science.