Dear Tristan,

You do live in a different world. Are you saying that Australians did not have political party choices? You might want to check the ballot box papers for the last 25 years. You might be able to observe names like greens and Democrats and many others.

I know the truth hurts, but your kind were part of small minority that few listened to

I actually support democracy, so accept the people's will (for better or worse depending on your perspective).

Sure, your views may have greater say in coming years, higher taxes and so on in many Western nations, but such trends will be decided by interaction between the parties and the people. Hence, nothing changes but i am sure your kind will jump on the bandwagon and claim credit for that

Tristan,

I thought i better follow it up, because youre kind needs a lot of convincing.

Thatchers harsh reforms in the 1970s did not stop her winning subsequent elections.

Whitlam's record saw him smashed in preference for a conservative party.

Labor's dramatic economic deregulation saw it win many more elections, although it was helped by a decent social welfare mix.

Howard went to the 1998 election with a GST, and won.

Data after data show tougher times for ordinary workers, but who do 80% still vote for (the communists or Labor or Liberal?)

Are politicians holding a gun to the head of those srtill wanting to buy houses at record prices?

Fact is the opportunity is there for your kind to run in elections. Please do so and test whether your arguments will get up.

My job is a political commentator. I am not in the business of ignoring public opinion, crucial to understanding policy trends now and in the future. I will leave commentary that leaves out important players to yourself and Manne.

First, there is widespread opposition to privatisation - even in conservative Queensland - and even today:

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/blighs-asset-sell-off-could-hurt-rudd-at-the-polls/story-e6freoof-1225831564268

But re: conservatism... Maybe instinctive conservatism is part of this opposition? People not wanting change? Regardless - there was opposition in the past, and there remains opposition now.

The thing about privatisation, though - is that even though most people didn't support it, as an issue it wasn't enough for people to break from the two party system... I dare say people couldn't see the immediate impact upon their lives and their hip pocket - as we see with tax reform and social programs. And unions were too scared to break from Labor for fear of the 'greater evil'.

That said privatisation means a number of things:

* profits no longer flow back into social expenditure: govt revenue undermined in the long-run
* can undermine competition in conditions where a public GBE was a bulwark against oligopoly and collusion
* no longer scope for cross-subsidies; unprofitable services for which there is a social need undermined and often withdrawn absolutely
* prices can rise steeply: as we are seeing with rising energy and water costs: eg - the desalination plant in Victoria for which we will be paying in our bills: private finance/PPPs are also costing us in the long run - partly because govt is in a stronger position to borrow...

re: housing price - no govt's not 'hold a gun' to people's heads - but there is good reason to intervene in the market for the public good... In the meantime people are voting with their feet; remaining with parents; moving into outer suburbs - whose lack of infrastructure we'll need to account for one day...

A very interesting article Chris and well argued.

What I think the problem is, as you said, not overall policy but a need to divide it into separate sectors, requiring different forms and degrees of regulation and government interference (or not), and a re-evaluation of how consumer rights and public rights weigh into each consideration- in short, the need to cut some pieces OFF the free-market pie (Telstra's poor performance and management, particularly reluctance to actually manage, maintain and create infrastructure lowering our telecommunications services in a world increasingly reliant on telcoms being, to me, a similar category as the need for public healthcare, is a particular example).

This issue in general is particularly important to infrastructure, land acquisition, investment rights, urban planning and especially housing, as all involve a considerable clash of interest of private, public, economic and infrastructural consequences.