This article beats the OLO word limit hands down. It should be up on the index as an item of record. So many quotable quotes its not funny.

Very timely.

"Reject sensationalist news media" I completely agree and almost never listen to the ABC which is so one eyed and hysterical it's a joke now.

"Turn it off or don’t purchase it" as above on turning it off, but unfortunately they are funded by taxpayer dollars - so no choice there eh?

You're worried about corporate media and don't even mention the most entrenched media bias in our country, the ALPBC or ABC as some people know it, deliberate perhaps?

You make no mention of the awesome funding the ALP gets from their militant funding organizations, the Union movement - why is that? I guess that wouldn't fit with your pitch that the ALP is held by corporate values now, what utter rubbish, we have a socialist pretending at the moment to be anything she can just to get elected. As Richo says "whatever it takes"

They have put Australian workplace relations back to a time before Hawke's Accord - which was godsend for progress in this country.

"The debate does not centre on the fact that our military, or our allies, are directly responsible for the destruction that forces people to flee their homes in leaky boats"

Afghanistan is landlocked, how do we force Afghans to get into leaky boats in Indonesia, if they hate us so much, why come here. This is typical uninformed dogma or deliberate lying of the left.

When did we enter the civil war in Sri Lanka?

Do you have any idea what's going on? Where do you get your information? In the Left Daily I suppose, there are other sources of information you know, there's this thing called the internet ..

What a goose .. of course you're entitled to your views, as am I and the Australian community who are not debating what you think is relevant, but what really IS relevant.

Justin hands down your article is the best this site has ever recieved, and by far the most accurate and daring account of how Liberal and Labor actually operate. From the shifts to the right, the notable lack of action in certain areas, the state of media, and the need for informed citizens to make it work- there's simply too many good points to quote.

Amicus, if you bothered to read it a little harder you would have noticed that he did mention Unions a few times. And do you seriously believe Labor does not pander to corporate interests? Take a look at Bob Carr and get back to me. Or better yet, take a look at NSW and get back to me. This is a party that has sold off more public-owned infrastructure and put even more corporate and economical DE_regulations than even the Liberal party- all for the benefit of their lobbyists.

Anyway, could you care to list what issues *are* important that the Liberal and Labor Party are satisfying? And of course, WHY these issues are so pressingly serious that the state of Australia is necessary (and why). As I see it under both of these parties we've had the brain drain, manufacturing industries leaving our shores, public ownership of practically nothing, extortionate fees to use what was ten years ago a public asset, not much effort to actually prevent terrorists and Islamic extremists from coming to Australia (Hilali and Hizb Ut Tahir), no population plan, pandering to extremist religious groups, banning numerous personal rights, broadband network that is actually WORSE than most of South East Asia, etc.
But do share! (and make sure your answers are detailed or don't bother- it will look like you simply couldn't answer the question)

Although I'm not getting my hopes up- you seem to be falling for a lot of spin, by the looks of your post.

kinghazza "I seem to be falling for a lot of spin, by the looks of your post"

there you go, fixed.

that's my opinion mate, why would I bother justifying it some blowhard like you?

Political parties have not “drifted” to the right, lad; they have deliberately moved to the right to conform to the wishes of the electorate they are working for. Australians who have lived longer than you – the majority - are conservative people who know that the claptrap of the left doesn’t hold up under the normal pressures of life.

The real “antiquated”….political dialogue” is the talk about a ‘working class’, ‘worker’s parties’ and class warfare in general; as is the use of “populism”. Since when were politicians not meant to be popular and do as they are required to do by their employers!

But, what else but nonsense could you expect from a contributor to “Left Focus”, pushing a political system which has failed spectacularly world-wide.

Justin as the face of Australia has changed over the past 40 years so have the platforms of the political parties. Blue collar, white collar, upper class, middle class, the poor, the rural segment and a rather new term of the working poor are slowly melding into political grey rather than the black and white political divisions of Australia in the 20th century. This reshaping of "identity" is a natural progression and both the left and right of the political spectrum are evolving with the electorate.

Pole driven policy making has never been so evident as it is at the moment. But to my mind the major change is the evolution of "spin beyond belief" that our current government employs with abandon. No responsibility is ever taken but kudos is asked for and sadly there has been little call for kudos regarding this present crop of self serving no hopers.

I listen to the lies and spin deflections that the Labor campaign is based around and I laugh out loud at the gall of the individuals mouthing the lies. How stupid do they think the electorate is, obviously considerably stupid given they continue with the blatant lies even when the facts are measurably different to the spin. The outcome of this election will be the definitive answer to the "how stupid" question and I might add that the outcome may also make me evaluate my judgment on how gullible we are. I may have a bridge for sale post election if anyone is interested.

I considered us, we Aussies (left or right) fair dinkum at the end of the day, call a spade a spade and move on. The defense of the indefensible is a slur and insult that is un Australian culturally and exhibits the snide contempt we are held in.

The press and media in general have a lot to answer for regarding their "filtering" and the degree of "prominence" they have applied to the train wreck news emanating from Canberra over the last three years.

Give this author a big round of applause.

His observations are timely and accurate.

This campaign is staggering in it's shallowness. Just when you think there's got to be more to it, what do you know, there's less!

Fueled by a blind will to power, courting the lowest possible ambitions: Stop the boats! Protect our borders!

Budgie smugglers on the telly and designer duds in the Women's Weekly - rampant egos, blatant narcissism - it's not about you, Julia, it's about 20 million people - duh!

This article is a breath of fresh air and at last, somebody's said it as it is

Briar Rose,

And you talk about "shallowness"!

Thanks Justin for your article, you had something worthwhile to say and there were facts to support it. The site administration should be applauded for allowing a longer article where deserved, as in this case.

One area where I would like to see something more from you (an article?) would be on the differences between Australian conservatism and neo-liberalism. It is intriguing that many politicians and political observers appear to confuse the two, yet they are so different as to be opposites.

John Howard for example, was an activist for neo-liberalism and aggressively so, yet he would promote himself as a conservative. JWH's 'conservatism' was, I suspect, aimed more at: obtaining a politically legitimate hard shell (link with RGM); currying favour with the (mainly) Melbourne establishment he always felt uncomfortable with (and they with him); and, his late-felt ambition to win an honour from Britain's Queen (and that was probably at Janette's behest).

It is heartening to see more articles from young men.

I think some of us are missing the point of the issue- forget the right-ward shift (IF) indeed it's what voters want (that in itself would be perfectly fine (as Leigh stated)). However, the issue is that neither the Liberal Party, nor the Labor party actually CARE about what the people think (outside PRETENDING they do to get elected, after which promptly forgetting), or what small business thinks- but what paying lobbyists and their own personal business partners (and future employers) think. Hence why the conservatives went for One Nation for quite a long time, realizing the Libs were just having them on.

Anyway
Ask yourself, if we ever had CIR, and these issues were put to referendum, how would you, and other people vote on each?
-Privatization of Telstra, transport, electricity, water, roads
-Public-private partnerships
-Euthanasia
-Shutting down highly-used hospitals and schools and selling the land
-Population
To list a few. Compare this to what's actually happening and ask yourself if this what you and the rest of Australia actually wants- or what some minority or lobbyist wants?
THAT is the issue. Ignore the author being left or not, he's making a good point.

Advice- if you don't like the above, and you don't like the Greens, check out your local Independent members and see where they stand.

Oh and Amicus, too bad for you- because you proved I was exactly right about you. That's all, step aside.

Sonofgloin, you have made a major blunder in your above post. You infer that you would be a carpetbagger exploiting the naivety of the Oz population if you were offering a bridge for sale. This is no longer true.

You would, most likely, be a legitimate agent of Anna's Queensland government, offering for genuine sale a quite useful piece of tax payer owned, & funded, property.

Get with the times please mate.

Hehe- good one Hasbeen.

Cornflower- I agree completely.
To be honest, I think most of Liberals and LAbor have a neoliberal agenda but try to dress it up as part of the conservative package to the voters, like it's being presented in the USA.

Leigh

"Australians who have lived longer than you – the majority - are conservative people".

Really. Do you have any evidence for this?

I am aware of a lot of older Australians who are concerned with the right wing shift in Australian politics. For example, only this morning on AM, I heard Malcolm Fraser say that he had resigned from the Liberal Party because it had moved to far to the right in his opinion.

Briar Rose, Cornflower & King Hazza

Agree with you all.

" The result has been a politics in Australia that is firmly framed by the right, with a two-party dominated system where both parties rely upon and pander to business for financial support. The further disconnected they have become from their traditional bases, the further their reliance on business has become. This in part also explains why both parties have needed to embrace the rhetoric of populist politics to camouflage their policies’ true benefactors. "

The above point appears to be lost on some of the posters here as well.

Ok lefties,

rather than just telling us how bad it is, such as lack of vision and lack of policy, tell us what you would do (taking account of international considerations and economic factors).

Then elaborate if there is any consequences from your policy ideas.

Mere criticism, without evidence or a discussion of consequences, is Disneyland stuff.

I mean why don't we just raise taxes and fund everything. Just see how long our wealth lasts in an increasingly competitive world.

Criticism of the major parties is a sad option by left-wing political commentators who should know better and see the difficulties ahead, as well as offering some realistic ideas.

If it was all so easy, don't you think the major parties would be doing better?

Loxton,

You ask: "Really. Do you have any evidence for this?"

Do you really have evidence against my assertion? Or, am the only one who has to produce evidence, while you do not?

Leigh, I think you have completely missed all the points the author is making in this article.
I wonder why?

Chris Lewis -
I don't think the major parties are doing so badly because it's all so hard. It's always been hard, and nobody thus far has made a worse mess of it than these two major parties.

I think that no matter how easy it was made for these self-absorbed power hungry mediocre unimaginative dorks, on both sides, they would still stuff it up.

And they would do this because fundamentally they aren't interested in making the country and the world a better place - they are interested only in their own gratification and well-being, and they will do anything, and follow any poll that seems likely to most assist them in that realising that ambition.

We, the punters, are a means to an end. It matters not a jot what alternatives might be suggested to them - if they don't first address the politicians personal ambitions, they will be binned

Briar Rose,

I agree, we need our politicians to do better.

But I do not believe that they do not have the national interest at heart.

There are policies that can make a difference, but most will have different strengths and weaknesses.

Further, contrary to what the former PM Fraser says, i do believe that it is much harder for Western govts today. We now longer have manufacturing on a mass scale, and our recent reliance upon debt and consumption is almost exhausted given that a similar rise in the next ten years would be national madness.

I think those two reasons alone tell us that things are getting harder.

Chris, I gave into the impulse to wildly generalise.

There are indeed pollies with a sense of responsibility who actually want to do some good.
They are usually relegated to the back benches, stripped of their influence and otherwise thoroughly trashed until they learn to keep their mouths shut.

I want to know what the next government intends to do about the frightening lack of resources for ageing Australians.

I want to know what they're going to do about alcohol abuse and its repercussions, which is off the charts in this country.

I want to know what they're going to do about our unbelievable rates of youth suicide and depression, and mental illness in general.

The Howard and the Rudd governments saw us safely through difficult economic times, and we are better off than any other western democracy post GFC.

But as far as social reform is concerned they're a dead loss, both of them,and they don't seem to care much either

Briar rose,

yes, on the social front we need to do more, housing affordability especially.

The Iraq war remains as a stain on Australia's community.
Until that stain is removed, Australian politics will never take its rightful place amongst the nations of the world.

Australia's then Prime Minister John Winston Howard sent Australia's SAS into Iraq on a shooting spree in the dead of night, killing thousands, BEFORE the ultimatum by Bush to Iraq had expired.In effect Australia's SAS conducted a Turkey Shoot in Iraq, or in other words a massacre. http://johnwinstonhowardandtheiraqwar.blogspot.com

06 August 2010

Justin George,

You rightly lament the vacuous-ness of the current Australian election.

Could you kindly indicate one election that has not been vacuous or, at least, one in which a politician has honored the pledges given at election time

*The debate does not centre on whether the mining industry should be nationalised with public control deciding how profits are distributed for public benefit.*

I should hope not. We've had that debate for the last 100 years
or so and we've moved on from there, apart from a few of the
extreme left, who are usually economically illiterate. Why
should we go backwards?

Both liberal and labor accept that market economics works, workers
agree, so they generally vote for one of those parties, not the
socialist left or another extreme left party.

What has changed is the ownership of our major corporations.
Years ago they were largely owned by foreigners. Today workers
own 1.3 trillion$ in super savings, which is as much as the
whole ASX value combined. In other words, Australian workers
largely own Australian industry and if corporate Australia is
not doing well, neither will their retirement nest eggs.

Corporate Australia also has a large say in the creation of
jobs. Workers need jobs. In fact only with a healthy economy
can we afford to be concerned about social policy.

People like Jennifer will always think of more ways that
Govts could spend money, but those paying all that tax,
ie workers, have to agree. We already spend the majority
of the Federal budget on social policy. Over a billion
is wasted on just leaky boats. How much more do you want?

Blackmail is the word you left out Justin.

While the Liberals are in bed with Multi-Nationals and Mining companies, it is the media on all sides including social media that fails to inform us of the background detail when complexities such as the "Mining Tax", EST or Climate Change Tax, Pharmaceutical companies relationship to Doctors, hence the AMA, consumerism[s] and the rest.

Allow me to add NGO's and Government Departments who also look after their self interests over the "common good".

What do we have?

It is to easy to just blame, as if we still lived in the fields, with the right to blame the emperor for drought, floods or rain.

Australia is going through monumental degree's of demographic change. It is as if we have not caught up with ourselves as the world, under capitalism, and information - techologies and climate change travels faster then we.

The Mining Companies may get high respect for pushing up the value of our currency but what does that mean to Export Farmers who need our currency to come down. We are in the middle of all this. We fail to stand up for these gaps enlarging.

No, the ALP is not in bed with corporate Australia, as much as is our ignorance. We like our fuel, our energy and gadgets. We fail eachother as citizens. To "help" one another, return to community based polices where action against the non-equity growing, could change mentalities, make the difference.

The ALP has given us vision... voice and democracry... if you listen to all the noise we made through talkback, on the airwaves and throughout the time since Howard. However, we blame the government for when it stands up against corporate Australia, and the government when it cant.. even in the Senate.

We say we want less regulation in policy, law and on the internet.

What do we do in our own personal life, to make sure we can be more self - governed, so we each influence changing "the" corporations?

More below.

http://www.miacat.com/

On "fiction". I guess the way the media has treated the past weeks of this election, it is even hard to stand up and say ... we need no regulation here either.

It is easy to blame using rumor and spin. Critical thinking and problem solving is more applied.

The 2010 election is about Reform yet I hear very little about what that means or why it is required. Rome wasn't built in a day yet we expect Christmas.

Blackmail is the under-current that is the ruin of our social fabric and we are as much part of the scandal as the turmoil is about which part we make-out... it to be. Serious when we believe it.

You see what you want to see and hear what you want to hear. I see and hear this; "It would also look at more "customer-friendly" service delivery and at building closer relationships with universities and the private sector, something absent in the culture of the service in Australia."

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/rudd-wants-sweeping-reform-of-public-service/story-fn3dxity-1225769254411

Across all sectors, at community levels through our life-styles. Then we have claim and influence to change the politics of money! Government has its hands tied with Reform issues as we presently make it dangerous to push Reform through Government. Climate Change in the Senate and the politcs behind the Mining Tax showed us that.

Fair must mean Fair... it involves us all.

http://www.miacat.com/

Chifley started Snowy scheme Menzies opposed as too costly, then claimed it once he opened it.
….....................................................................
Whitlam
Got the troops out of Vietnam.
Abolished the death penalty for Federal crimes.
Established Legal Aid.
Abolished University fees
Left no urban home unsewered in any city.
Financed highways and standard-gauge rail lines between the state capitals.
Established the Supporting Mothers Benefit.
…............................................................
Fraser quickly dismantled the programs.
Made major changes to Medibank.
Implemented budget cuts to the Commonwealth Public Sector, including the ABC.

Hawke – Keating`````````````````````````````````````
Deregulated the financial system.
Hawke dismantled the tariff system.
Medibank, dismantled by Fraser, was restored as, Medicare.
Moved centralised wage-fixing to enterprise bargaining
Deregulated the banking system.
Keating established the Australian National Training Authority (ANTA),
Keating's introduced the national superannuation scheme.

…........................................................
Howard dismantled the centralised wage-fixing system.
Aboriginal treaty was "repugnant to the ideals of One Australia".
Tax GST implemented,
Howard "core" and "non-core" election promises.
Without consulting Parliament committed Australia to war in Afghanistan.
Howard said that the invasion to "disarm Iraq...is right, it is lawful." Opposition to the war was between 48 and 92 %
Industrial relations changes intended to fundamentally change the employer-employee relationship.

There is a pattern, the ALP has always led nation building, and social change. Liberals tear it all down saying it costs too much, and the ALP starts all over again.
The ALP demonstrate Leadership and Management behaviours and the liberals are more in the style of Administrators.
Rudd revitalised Australian Spirit and prospects and the Liberals now want to tear it down again.
Abbott's mantra is ,too much debt, too much spent, Labor can't manage, Interest rates too high.
But of course, no figures, no facts ,no argument just assertions, gossip and unfounded statements, or inference.
Small target, no substance and exaggerate the facts as, worst ever, record debt, record this or that. No facts. No detail. No truth.
Journalist stick with scripted questions but never, never challenge the allegations being made, for accuracy or truth.

Poor bloody Australia, no one left to protect you from these no talent born to rule upper class twits.

Cool Banana's Lorry. Good Detail and Good Work.

poor lorry, sees a class war, exactly where the ALP wants him to see it - miacat leads the cheering. The ALP can do no wrong (at the moment).

The ALP has not always led nation building and social change (why do we need social change anyway?) The conservatives have not always "torn apart" the wonderful work the ALP has done.

It must be the stupid people of Australia who can't see this incredibly obvious and simplistic reflection of life - why did they keep PM Howard in government for 11 years if the conservatives were so bad?

because what you say is just not so, but it is the typical myopic view from the left

The conservatives have done wonderful nation building and typically the ALP tries to tear it apart the moment they get into power. It cuts both ways I admit it, can you?

have fun with that, it's just not worth arguing with the rusted on determined left - as the election goes on though, I expect you'll abandon the ALP as well as losing their way and pandering to the outrageous demands of ordinary Australians.

Raise the Dust is clearly a rusted on Laborite, criticising John Howard (even to the hackney inclusion of Howard’s middle name) about Iraq, but not saying a word about Afghanistan, which is supported by Labor.

Iraq, like John Howard, is over. Afghanistan is still on, with Labor’s help. Australian soldiers are still being killed; the whole thing is a mess without end.

Lorry (that’s a truck isn’t it?) is still fighting the class war – “upper class twits” – there is no politician dead or alive who was ever “upper class” – they have all been pretty low class!

The sooner they abolish compulsory voting so that people like these two don’t have to vote, the better off Australia will be.

"It is easy to be cynical in the modern world. To do so often feels like rebellion, but it merely masks an acceptance..." says Justin George.

Not necessarily so. I have been cynical of the Australian political system for over 10 years at least, and in forums like this and elsewhere have often advocated trying to change it by voting the 2 major parties last. Which is what Justin George himself is essentially recommending. It's about the only lawful option I can think of that might work.

But do you think enough Australians will do it? Not likely given the experience of past elections, given the way young people are educated about political matters in the government's schools, given the slanted media coverage thrust upon us, and given the essential stupidity of so many of Australia's people.

Call me a cynic if you like, but I will need to see some positive results before believing anything will change as a result of Justin George's nice article. Pity!

If you want to change this economic oppression,then reform the banking system.The RBA paid the Aust Govt in 08/09 a dividend of $ 5.9 billion.Our our economy grows by and average of 3% and we have an average inflation rate of 3.5%.So the money supply is increased annually by 6.5%.Now our GDP is $1.2 trillion and 6.5% of this is $78 billion but our Govt only got $ 5.9 billion.Who created the rest of the $72 billion? Well the private banking system does and much of it is borrowed for global reserve banks who create it in their computers.

This is why we are so much debt.Our personal debt is now bigger than our GDP and higher than USA per capita debt.We have given out GDP to foreign bankas to be loaned back to us as debt.

There is a light at the end of the tunnel. It is not daylight but an oncoming express train, and the people it is going to run down, like Augusto Pinochet was run down, is going to be the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police first up, and then eat its way up and down the food chain, taking the superannuation and wealth from some of our lazy and severely criticized judiciary, unless they start doing their job properly.

The sad part is that it does not need to happen. The Commissioner Australian Federal Police can do his job, and the International Criminal Court can be held at bay, and denied jurisdiction. The struthious conduct of every High Court since 1952, must end for them to enjoy a peaceful retirement. Struthious means make like an ostrich. Bury your head in the sand, and hope that the train never reaches the platform. Rules 6.06 and 6.07 of the High Court Rules 2004, must be set aside to avoid retribution.

Kevin Rudd like Keating introduced some serious reforms, and these were supported by the Opposition, in most cases. Kicking and screaming, the Commonwealth Government has made itself again liable to criminal sanctions, and by S 64 Judiciary Act 1903 is in law the same as you and me. S 65 allows a Ch III Constitution court of Judicature, that is a court with judges, as an administrative act, as in a fully functioning democracy, on order of the Presiding Justice, to issue a warrant on the Consolidated Commonwealth Revenue.

This warrant for a penalty is due from the Commonwealth because it is not enforcing the law of the Commonwealth on the States. These nasty State Governments, have blatantly flaunted the laws of the Commonwealth, by creating themselves as God. In our law, based on a big family, Almighty God is the father, the Queen is His delegate in law, and all jurisdiction derives from Almighty God through Her. The Parliament of the Commonwealth has put in place an International Court that can exercise jurisdiction over even Her. This happened in 2002

The advent of Christianity was the most radical event ever to overtake mankind. It tipped almost everything then in force on its head, and by the Gospels, gave us a template for a fully functional democracy. Those who would destroy democracy, also deny that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is a law of the Commonwealth. Some of our learned legally qualified co-posters have argued that it is not a Schedule 2 to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 and display their poor education, by not knowing that by S 12 and 13 Acts Interpretation Act 1901 it is law.

They are still displaying their mediocrity when they deny that Schedule 1 to the International Criminal Court Act 2002, is the Statute of Rome. They are displaying their mediocrity when they deny the enforcement of S 268:11 and 12 of the Criminal Code Act 1995. They will find out that six judges, a plural number on the International Criminal Court do have jurisdiction to enforce that Statute, and any Judge and Magistrate in Australia who does not do his job, and abide the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights can and will lose his job. There is in Australia one David-Wyn:Miller a radical educator from Hawaii with an IQ of about 200, who claims that under the International Criminal Court he has obtained the resignation of about 4,000 Judges.

This is radical, and just as Jesus Christ was radical, so too is he. He says that all language can be reduced to a mathematical formula, and this radical syntax reduces human behavior to a code of conduct. The Holy Bible is a code of conduct, and it contains all the necessary essentials for a fully functioning democracy. Jury trials come straight out of the Holy Bible. The Lord said: Judge not that ye be not judged. Matthew 7:1. We all sin in that respect, but on election day, we are going to be judging Julia. As a collective the Christian Big Jury will decide. The Christian little juries could forgive our judiciary

Briar Rose - You say that Howard and Rudd saw us through dangerous economic times; and while I agree with other things you've written, I can't accept this about Howard. In particular, the Howard Govt let the housing bubble get out of control, and that means interest rate movements are WAY more sensitive than would otherwise have been the case, locking many out of the market. Not to mention failing to invest in infrastructure and education.

Yabby: You portray any debate about socialised mining as belong to the past, going against the accepted wisdom of the market etc.

But we could have public mining enterprises that operated in a competitive INTERNATIONAL context. The competitive pressures would still apply, but within Australia the profits would be socialised. And I think we're talking tens of billions.

It's possible to have a democratic mixed economy; with a strategic mix of public and private; maintaining competition where appropriate; or having natural monopoly where appropriate. (water, energy, transport infrastructure, communications infrastructure etc)

The best way is to decide public or private on a case by case basis; but the neo-liberal ideology allows for virtually no exception.

It's also possible to have a democratic private sector via mutalism, collective capital formation and co-operatives.

lorry:>> There is a pattern, the ALP has always led nation building, and social change. Liberals tear it all down saying it costs too much, and the ALP starts all over again.<<


Lorry, In another thread I used the same premise as you to justify the good works of past Labor governments. When you read down the list of positive, socially beneficial achievements the Labor party easily beats the Libs hands down.

I can still recall the one and only political discussion I had with my father shortly before my first vote. He proffered that we vote the Libs in to sort out the economy, and then we vote Labor in to sort out "us" by giving something back to the community not just the nation. That is how Labor use to be, although not an "A" student on the economic front they were humanistic and competant in their governance of the electorate. In a land of plenty we could afford their over spend and they did not throttle the goose that lay the economic eggs.

Lorry those times are gone, that generation has gone and we have a hedonistic society led by hedonistic MP's. Given that politicians of all persuasions have no forward vision beyond the next election, all I ask for is competency, and not even private sector competency, something close will do. This government are not competent and they cannot be ascribed the vision or achievements of previous Labor governments.

We reap what is sown, and the current crop of Labor MP's are a product of the 70's left wing uni campus protected species that are Fabians in ideologue. Their prime concern is about the movement, not the electorate, we a not the "end" just a means to get to their "ends".

We must judge this government by their track record, and it is as abysmal as it is evident. So I personally will not cop "quality by association" as you infer in your post.

Lorry,
you will think different once you grow up & you're expected to pull your own weight.

We have a Two-Party system. And as to checking out your local Independent members as King Hazza, had suggested will not make a huge deal of difference in our Political system. The votes will either go to either major party (Lib's/Lab's) at the end of the day.
However though, by voting for an Independent member, your vote will help him/her's gain a seat in parliament, a good job or either save him/her job

As John Howard has now entered the election as the representative of the Liberal Coalition and big business, it is timely to point out that this man, Howard, was also responsible for bringing Australia into an illegal war in Iraq which has resulted in the deaths of millions of men, women and children in that country and has reduced that country to a compete ruin. If Australia has any pride it will prosecute this man and his then war ministers for war crimes. The way is now open!
http://johnwinstonhowardandtheiraqwar.blogspot.com/2010/08/john-winston-howards-illegal-killing.html

Chris Lewis- not such a Lefty myself but you make a fair demand in asking us what we should do ourselves- unfortunately I have quite a long list of simple 'don'ts' to start with. I would:
-NOT have sold Telstra, transport, roads, Sydney Airport, Qantas, nor even contemlated selling Lotto, Sewers, Electricity, or mental hospitals and schools on prime real estate.
-NOT Deregulated the banks
-NOT Introduced compulsory Super
-NOT give huge donations of taxpayer's money to "struggling" industries with no strings attached
-NOT Participated in the Iraq and Afghanistani Wars (or at least, have withdrawn by now).
-NOT have done anything so dodgy as the Lane Cove Road getting most of its lanes closed down and decelerated to 60 zones so people are forced to use the private-owned tunnel.
-NOT criminalize Euthanasia, Abortion, Gay Marriage
-NOT take political donations
-NOT give money to the Exclusive Brethren
-NOT introduce a mandatory internet filter
-NOT overturn the deportation of a hate-cleric to try to get his followers to vote for me next election
to mention a few notable improvements

Oh Miacat sorry to dissapoint- but you should pay closer attention to NSW politics, and in particular Bob Carr- and compare him to his colleages, before being so fast to assume that Labor is not beholden to NGOs and private companies- especially once they leave parliament.

Lorry- could you list on pragmatic idea the Rudd government had? They're very much like the Liberals you described, don't you think?

SONYA- only if the other parties ultimately lose out- once they get more votes, they do indeed get launched into main government.

Our political leaders are all controlled by large corporate interests patricularily the international reserve banks.This is called an Oligarchy.They finance the our Govts thus arms dealers,big pharma, toll roads etc.

Large Corps love socialsist Govts since they tax us to the hilt and our Govts give them lots of money.When Kevin Rudd borrowed $40 billion for stimulus and the schools fiasco,the RBA saw inflation coming so increased interest rates.Hence the stimulus did very little.Big British companies like Leightons got contracts for the Schools debacle and local contractors saw very little of this money.The RBA also sucked much of this money out via rate increases and we got left with the debt.It was just another a scam forr the big end of town.Kevin did not have to borrow all this money,just keep rates low.

Remember when Kevin Rudd jumped up and down when rates were falling and he was asking the banks to pass on rate decreases? They ignored him and virtually told him to suck eggs.

Western Govts have lost their sovereignity.We have sold off all our income earning assets to pay for debt because we have given away the right to create what is rightfully ours, ie our GDP and the inflationary money which devalues our currencies.

Ron Paul has a campaign to End the USA Federal Reserve.Unbeknownst to most people there are 12 private banks that own the US Fed.The own their currency and keep them in perpetual debt from which they cannot escape.Ron Paul a few months ago was on equal polling with Obama for president.

see "Fall of the Repulic" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VebOTc-7shU This will give you an idea of how he oligarchs control us.

King Hazza">>NOT Introduced compulsory Super<<

KH, I agree with your list, excepting the above.

Justin George is to be thanked for so well encapsulating observations that are capable of being made by any person in Australia not obsessed with the idea of evaluating everything in terms of the label that may be conventionally put upon it, be it by an author, or by posters commenting on an article.

These are some of the, to my mind, quotable quotes from his Article that I made reference to in opening this comments thread:

"... a two-party dominated system where both parties
rely upon and pander to business for financial support.
The further disconnected they have become from their
traditional bases, the further their reliance on business
has become."

"As media ownership becomes concentrated and as people’s
spare time becomes more pressed, the pressures on politics
and media are to strip away meaningful debate. Exploration
of ideas, policies and their merits are forsaken in favour
of sound bites, catchphrases and the more entertaining
clash of personalities."




"... addressing the corporate stranglehold on Australian politics
involves refusing to participate in the two-party system."




This is the crux of the problem.

As Australians have conventionally, to whatever extent, understood their system of elected representative government, there seems no prospect of escape from this stranglehold. Whilst the requirement of compulsory preferential voting for the casting of a valid vote only underscores this Hobson's choice, its abandonment carries the almost certain implication of the fragmentation of political representation with its likely resultant political instability. Australians need to explore the latent strengths of the Constitution for themselves at first hand, not as regurgitated by the political apparatchiks that have been generated by what could well be termed this 'guided democracy'. For a possible way out: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3840&page=0

As so well put in this quote:

"Demand meaningful content, and support small independent
operations that provide critical information about those
in power. Democracy means informed citizenry."

That means supporting and using sites like OLO in its capacity as an online journal of record, with all of the cross-linking power this medium offers. It also means posting on-topic to quality articles

"King Hazza">>NOT Introduced compulsory Super<<
KH, I agree with your list, excepting the above."

Perfectly reasonable SonofGloin, I personally hate it myself, but thought it good to throw it in and see what everyone thinks.

Forest Gump- agree also.

Arjay, I watched some of your "Fall of the Republic" doco and it took me back to my youth pre internet when all night conversations about the world and who ran it, corporatisation, globalism, world government, national sovereignty and the rights of the individual left us in no doubt that a world domination strategy was being implemented by an NGO.

I witnessed one of the core (the first to my mind) foundations to world governance implemented in 1975 called the Lima Declaration. It is a free trade agreement that in one document takes away the national sovereignty of every signatory to it. It takes from us the right to tax incoming goods and the right to decide on what crosses our boarder. It also dictates what we can produce and export. It is the reason that manufacturing drained from the west to the east in twenty short years.

What we have lost in 20 short years is astounding, we "had" a Silicon Valley of our own via our CSIRO and we were leaders and innovators punching well above our weight in the technology stakes. In the 70's every consumable and product that was manufactured in the States and Europe we produced locally, you name it we made it.

The Lima Declaration dictated that we grow, harvest, mine and export without value adding to the raw resource, "they" will do that in cheaper climes. Then we were to (and have) dismantled our manufacturing base by dropping protectionist policy and allowing the market force of cheap imports to do the rest, as it has.

How did the majority of sheeple miss all this happening under our very noses? We were "directed" via the media to save the whale, save the rainforest, save the natives, and finally save the world from carbon and ourselves. Arjay look into "the club of rome" to see the real governors of the world.

Yes Sonofgloin,this is an excellent doco.Assoc Prof K Black was a senior regulator in banking in the USA.Fall of the Republic has some highly qualified and credible commentators.

The Glass Stegall Act that separated commercial and private banks was dismantled by the Clinton Admisnistration in the 90's,was one of their firewalls.The destruction of Glass Stegall, enabled the sub-prime mortage debacle and the growth of derivatives, ie paper money based on paper money.

The neo-cons via the IMF, Bank Of International Settlements are currently creating enormous amounts of fiat money to delay the inevitable.The really big collapse is about to happen.When the derivatives start to unravel,they will begin to sell and turn to things like land,energy,resources and gold.Then all this fiat money will find it's way into the real economy.Hence comes stagflation and hyperflation.We will have rising interest rates,high unemployment , very little production and money depreciating before our eyes.This happened in the Weimar Republic and during the great depression.

So we'd better prepare for the worst and hope for the best.

Leigh

A lot of activity on this site over the weekend. I think you over-reacted to my question. I think that although this site is called On-line Opinion, those opinions should at least be backed up with some evidence.

Contrary to your view, I did give an example of someone (Malcolm Fraser) who has not moved to the right as he has gotten older, but one swallow doesn't make a spring, so I did a bit more research. This article talks about the voting patterns of older Australians and is fairly recent. http://www.pol.mq.edu.au/apsa/papers/Refereed%20papers/Martin%20Pietsch_TheGreyVote.pdf

It concludes that "we find that older Australians contribute to the stability of the Australian party system by being less likely to vote for a minor party and being more likely to vote for the same party over time. But in other ways (in regards to partisanship, socialisation and values) they largely conform to the rest of the population." I conclude that it is not a given that people will move to the right as they get older as you contend, rather they stick with their existing preferences.

I'd welcome your views.

King Hazza,

i agree, there are many policies we can agree or disagree with, and argue about whether they should have been introduced.

My general comment was about the trend, particularly from an Australian economic perspective.

Much of thee privatisation and deregulation to encourage competition is driven by the reality that we must compete. In other words, globalisaiton has forced us to make greater reforms rather than merely protect us as we did on the past. On top of this, the interaction between political parties and Australians has increased social welfare spending.

The end result is that we are indeed struggling to meet old and new needs. Hence, our increasingly reliance on debt to fuel economic activity.

Govts cannot simply ignore their role that adheres to freer trade, flawed or not. Hence, this creates the impression that they do not care.

Any article that suggests that neither major party is interested in the the national interest, merely adhering to corporate goals, must also reflect policy difficulties.

The author may impress the leftwing believers and his fellow altruistic PhD students and academics, but such an article is an insult to the many that are indeed doing their best to uphold the national interest, including Gillard and Abbott. Truth is that the answers are extremely hard.

Yes, we do need better ideas. But unlike the author, I still see the potential, although all policy outcomes will still have various strengths and weaknesses.

Problem there is Chris is that the instances we have seen so far show the government's interaction with private enterprise to be exactly as the author stated as opposed to the examples of economic necessity you have given (and arguably compulsory super may fall under).
In particular is Privatization of infrastructure; as for obvious reasons, it has no ability to compete with anything, no relevance to external markets except upkeep and initial construction costs relating to resource trade (were it not also available domestically) and is much harder to subsidize outside public control and, in turn, able to subsidize other infrastructure, projects.

It arguably has an economic downside as people dependent on the infrastructure are being put out of pocket money that they could have spent on a more commercially relevant product or service.

King Hazza,

Your points maybe true.

But I do not believe the author's tone that our major parties are simply in tune with corporate interests.

I would argue that the reforms of recent decades have been driven by the structure of the economy and its perceived strengths and weaknesses.

Fro example, the situation of Scandinavian nations, in terms of the structure and traditions of its societies and economies, may have been more conducive to the type of policies you suggest.

Our policy makers may have been wrong, and I suspect they were on some grounds that you point to.

My problem is with the tone of the argument. It is completely unfair.

Criticism is easy from sidelines. I am probably guilty of that at times.

But I would note that policy makers also had some sound reasons for the decisions being criticised.

I mean take the author's words "The difficulty of a principled, truly democratic and participatory Australian politics emerging is thus evident. If introducing substantive changes that seek to shift power from corporate Australia back to the Australian population were introduced it would face challenges much greater and widespread than witnessed with Rudd’s mining tax".

Why does he not accept that many Australians supported the backdown. He talks about the potential of democracy, but he refuses to accept that many actually agreed with the mining companies. I do not believe that the issue got unfair treatment by the media.

Liberal democracies are dynamic and competitive entities. The fact that the left does not win many of the debates may have more to do with their inability to express their ideas in a way that convinces the parties and public. I do not view the media as biased and see quite a bit of diversity.

Chris;

People like me supported a compromise (or backdown as you say) on the mining tax - because we saw it as a battle we COULD NOT WIN.

The miners had a warchest of *hundreds of millions* to spread fear; and were in an 'unholy alliance' with the likes of Abbott and substantial sections of the media; effectively in a conspiracy against the Australian people - but posing as their saviour.

That I personally supported a compromise on the mining tax because it was a battle we could not win - does not mean the whole situation was acceptable or right.

We have a right to vote, and there is media diversity at the margins only; but the economic and cultural power of the largest corporations in this country reveal tendencies towards plutocracy. So what we really have is a 'managed democracy' - where the big economic and cultural actors manipulate people by their prejudices and fears; and 'make or break' governments.

It's not good enough.

Tristan,

Whatever the situation, we all need to work hard to get the issues across.

The so-called right may be winning, as the left suggests, but societies can and do change.

The only difference between myself and yourself is that i have a more positive take on recent policy trends in the sense that they are both understandable and reasonable.

This does not mean that I do not see major problems ahead. Hence, that will be the focus of my next article should it be published.

*The miners had a warchest of *hundreds of millions* to spread fear; and were in an 'unholy alliance' with the likes of Abbott and substantial sections of the media; effectively in a conspiracy against the Australian people*

Not so Tristan, that is simply a claim by those who don't
understand the issue from the miners perspective. Companies like
BHP make sure that they don't get involved in politics. Their's
was a straightforward economic calculation, not much different
to how you or anyone else makes a decision, when you invest
your hard earned savings.

BHP alone has over half a million Australian shareholders. BHP
does not dig up minerals just for fun, those shareholders want
and deserve a return on their investment, no different to you
when you want interest on your savings.

The point was that BHP are already handing over more then
40% of their earnings to the Govt, this new tax could in
some circumstances, have taken it up to 75%, hardly reasonable.

BHP and other miners made it quite clear that under these
terms, they would simply take their new investments elsewhere.
Fair enough, so they should, there are plenty of other mining
developments around the world, screaming for investment Dollars.

What the Govt was proposing was not tax, but robbery. Luckily
Julia Gillard would have picked that up and so the changes.
That is all quite different to being in some conspiracy with
Abbott. I remind you that Rio have just announced a major
expansion of their Pilbara venture under the new terms.

If your theory was the case, they would have waited until
after the elections, not announced it now, which in fact
vindicated Gillard as being on the right track in her
negotiations with the industry.

I do see your point Chris, and I'd agree that to insinuate corruption for an economy-priority-based decision (including a bad one) would be excessive.

But I still have my doubts overall- though not over the coal tax backflip as it was a logical backdown move, and the wasted money to convince that car manufacturer to remain in Australia I can believe a sincere blunder. Other acts, like donating money to the Coal Industry, however, leave me suspicious- as there is little economic improvement by merely leaving a raw materials industry with more cash.

(for NSW Labor, on the other hand, there is not a doubt in my mind).

Tristan,This is one of ther rare occasions that I'l agree with Yabby.The mining tax was ill thought out.Much of people's super money was tied up in this industry.The Rudd Govt is totally incompetant.Why give them our super money for another of their wanton urinals?

Both the major parties are controlled by large corporates and do their bidding.However we need to change this system in a sane evolutionary way if possible,so honest people do not get burned again.

The Labor party was created to look after and protect the interests of the Australian people against the greed and malice of big corporations, Labor has implemented every benefit we now take for granted. The liberal party was created by the big corporations to oppose the Labor party attempts to implement protections, the liberal party has no other function, none. Just look at this election it could not be more clear. The liberal party is completely funded by multinational carbon polluters and tobacco companies, it opposes every thing Labor has done to alleviate the worst financial crises since the great depression, which was caused by the type of people that fund and control extreme right political parties like the liberal party! All Abbott and his confederates are doing is opposing Labor party policy, even the most ignorant and the corrupted have to agree it's irrefutable, Abbott gives the whole game away every time he opens his mouth!
In 11 days Abbott will no longer be liberal party leader and the transparent token woman loyal deputy, Julie Bishop will have a 4th leader to pretend to be loyal to?

And to think, Arjay, how I so very nearly missed this contribution of yours entirely. Such a good chuckle.

>>The destruction of Glass Stegall, enabled the sub-prime mortage debacle and the growth of derivatives, ie paper money based on paper money.<<

I know you like things to be simple and neat, and to fit tidily with your prejudices. But life really isn't like that.

Out in the real world, economists are still debating the impact of Gramm-Leach-Bliley, and will probably continue to do so for another ten years. I can produce as many quotes from the pro-GLB folk as you can produce antis, by the way, so I wouldn't bother.

But this has to be my favourite Arjay-ism, so far:

>>The neo-cons via the IMF, Bank Of International Settlements are currently creating enormous amounts of fiat money to delay the inevitable.The really big collapse is about to happen.When the derivatives start to unravel,they will begin to sell and turn to things like land,energy,resources and gold.Then all this fiat money will find it's way into the real economy.Hence comes stagflation and hyperflation<<

Firstly, where are the "enormous amounts of fiat money" right now, if they are not in "the real economy"?

Which economy are they in?

And if "derivatives start to unravel", as you predict, where will the money come from to buy into "things like land,energy,resources and gold"?

No rush, take your time.

An article of mine on the Aus Election has also been published here at OLO today. (Aug 10) Debate is welcome there also! :))

HFR:>> Labor has implemented every benefit we now take for granted.<<

I agree, the major social policies have come from Labor

>>Labor has done to alleviate the worst financial crises since the great depression,<<

This is not true. Our banks did not fail; they did not need govt money. The govt gave an assurance that they would cough up to the account holder if the banks failed, that was it, verbal reassurance. The price of assets in Australia did not plummet as in the northern hemisphere, ask anyone trying to purchase a house or business.

There was no fire sale, the repossession rate did not dramatically climb, the homeless did not clog the private and govt welfare institution as they did in the mid 80's when interest rates went from 9% to 18% in a six month period. That landed more people on the streets than this "2nd Great Depression" you describe.

Re your rant about big business and the Libs, your right, in the past big biz favoured the libs and visa versa. But "this current" Labor party "over paid" 2 billion (that is from what we know about) of our borrowed money to a handful of corporate building contractors, they screwed up the batts scheme, they did nothing to alleviate hospital waiting lists, we still have two companies selling us 90% of the food we consume, the oil companies charge us what they like and the banks do whatever they please. No regulation, just a tax on our mineral exports, unlike the banks a risky costly business to maintain when compared with return.

>> funded by multinational carbon polluters and tobacco companies,<<

Unless you are sending your pearls of wisdom from a hut on the desolate steppes of Siberia you are the carbon polluter. Every stitch you wear, every implement you use, every mouthful of food you consume added to the carbon load.

Tristan Ewins:>> An article of mine on the Aus Election has also been published here at OLO today.<<

Thats it Tris, a little bit of marketing, do we get fries with the thread?....just joking.

Pericles,wants to know where all the fiat money created by our global reserve banksters is if not in the real economy.

Well Pericles when all the bailouts were happening in the USA and Europe that new money created being debted to the US people was going into the derivatives market to bail out the banksters and their mates.Much of this money is still is share market limbo and not being used as a medium of exchange for real goods and services.When the derivatives begin to unravel and they will,this excess counterfeit money will enter the real economy causing hyper-inflation ,high interest rates and unemployment,perhaps stagflation.

You Pericles,cannot distinguish between real transactions and ficticious poisonous,hedge funds,cedit default swaps etc.There are $ trillions tied up in the worthless derivative market and no one knows how much of this money is interwoven in real assets.When the $US begins to collapse ,there will be a giant sucking sound stripping the share market of enormous wealth.

The standard advice in situations like this, Arjay, is "when you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging".

The problem, I suspect, is that you know too little to stop yourself parrotting stuff that you don't remotely comprehend.

>>...when all the bailouts were happening in the USA and Europe that new money created being debted to the US people was going into the derivatives market to bail out the banksters and their mates<<

Your evidence for this is, what? Or is it a secret?

Incidentally, in what sense is the derivatives market not part of the real economy? Come to that, do you actually know what a derivative is?

>>Much of this money is still is share market limbo and not being used as a medium of exchange for real goods and services<<

'Scuse me? Money "in limbo"? How does that work? If it is in limbo, how can it be used to bail anyone out?

The fact that you are not making sense is an understatement.

>>When the derivatives begin to unravel and they will...<<

How does a derivative "unravel", Arjay? What exactly happens?

>>...this excess counterfeit money will enter the real economy"

Putting the two statements next to each other, you suggest that the unravelling of the derivative markets will release a whole lot of money. You call it "counterfeit", but from past experience that's just your codeword for "borrowed".

I am really interested in your explanation of how this actually occurs in real life, Arjay.

Particularly the "unravelling" part, which appears to generate "excess" money.

It may take you a little time to research. But I am happy to wait.

individual:
"you will think different once you grow up & you're expected to pull your own weight."

Wow, Lorry puts forward a detailed argument and you respond with this?

Maybe we should just find the oldest bloke in the room and agree with him on everything, for surely he must be the wisest, despite the fact he would be well and truly entrenched in whatever biases and prejudices he developed at a young age being educated in a time when we still had the White Australia Policy.

And it would be a bloke, because women had no need for opinions back then either.

Education has come a long way in the 15 years since I was at uni; let alone in the past 50 years. It is quite evident in the posts of some in OLO, that's for sure.

BTW, I thought this article was a very accurate assessment on the state of democracy in this country, which as it stands is largely a result of compulsory voting.

Pericles,the consumate conman.Derivatives are contracts whose value is derived mostly from the price of intangibles,such as cash market investmensts,stocks,bonds and money market instruments.

It is paper money based on expectation.It works this way.The Global Reserve banks create money in their computers thus depreciating our labour reward for effort.

The large banks make sweet heart deals (ie very low interest rates) with large corporates in which they have shares.They can generate in their computers money at will,to equal in Western economies,the combination of inflation and GDP.This is $ trillions globally and so they are now powerful enough to dictate to our Govts and our media, their agendas.

Your "New World Order" Pericles,is coming asunder.

It's good to see that you have made some effort, Arjay.

>>Derivatives are contracts whose value is derived mostly from the price of intangibles,such as cash market investmensts,stocks,bonds and money market instruments.<<

What you have failed to do, unfortunately, is to link this back to your previous assertions:

>>When the derivatives start to unravel,they will begin to sell and turn to things like land,energy,resources and gold.<<

and

>>When the derivatives begin to unravel and they will,this excess counterfeit money will enter the real economy<<

So, back to your desk, and try again.

How do derivatives "unravel"? And how does this generate "excess counterfeit money"

There's little chance you'll ever become an economist. But there is a possibility you might one day start to understand the basics.

Hey, who am I kidding?

But while I am here...

>>The Global Reserve banks create money in their computers thus depreciating our labour reward for effort.<<

And where does this money go? Who spends it? On what?

And there are a few holes in this, too.

>>The large banks... can generate in their computers money at will... and so they are now powerful enough to dictate to our Govts and our media, their agendas.<<

But Arjay, if all this money is tied up in "derivatives", how does that give them any power, over anybody?

And if the derivatives are suddenly going to "unravel", would this not mean that the evil cabal of global banksters will then be powerless?

Surely, this would be something you would welcome?

I support a reforming political movement for a voting system that does not lead to the dominance of the two major parties.

Voters deserve to have proportional representation in governments.

Restrictions on corporate political dominance is critical.

ALP union reforms require union democratization to lessen political hierachies, parliamentary careerism and the rule of ALP MPs.

Unions have to ensure Labor MPs are only elected to enact laws for workers.

For example, new labour law for legal rights for workers to advance our interests against the corporate and government management rule at work has not been gained in the last Parliament.

Major strengthening of Gillard's 'Fair'Work Act is required, as well as the deletion of Howard's anti-worker restrictions retained from WorkChoices.

The 'Fair'Work Act enshrines corporate control, explaining why in this election campaign Abbott supports it. This business position is one of stability.

The ideological spin in the media by both major parties is that WorkChoices has gone - whereas two thirds of it is reflected in the 'Fair'Work Act.

Few media journalists report on this glaring public deception.

Gillard promises in this election no reforms to her 'Fair'Work Act.

Despite the ACTU saying labour law reform is unfinished,our campaign is anti-Abbott and effective on TV and in the marginals. But the weakness is in not campaigning for our rights at work.

The unions knowing the weakness of the 'Fair'Work Act are nevertheless largely weak behind the ALP MPs and corporate dominance.

Nevertheless unions have great capacity for community campaigning, 'social unionism'.

It is just in the first term of the ALP government unions have been largely ineffectual compared with the corporate lobbyists.

What is not acknowledged is the severe instability of our world economic capitalist system.

Despite Gillard's necessary Keynesian stimulus, the political challenges for transformation of our unstable capitalism that puts profits before human needs are much deeper, and urgent.

We are all on red alert with the world's environmental crisis unfolding daily, largely caused by the corporates.

These issues in an alternative debate are posted on my left blog
http://chriswhiteonline.org

Marxism - Is the role of Marxism silently reforming our Political landscape. Or is it the case of a clever way to win the hearts of the people? Perhaps it is? Are the Greens true - that is to say, with their hand on their heart and willing to serenader their all ($$). To run to the needs of the people. insofar as their social/economical and environmental speeches tell us is this a form of Marxism?

Indeed the Greens agenda may be just what Australia is in need of. One may ask about their title. Are they just another large coup fighting for the extra power and position?

sonya2 The Greens sold out to the large corporates a long tme ago.Internationally they were very quiet when BP mismanaged the Gulf oil spill.

Just look at who gives money to the Greens as well as the major political parties.

Hey Adjar

Don't leave me in suspense..