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.