And what strikes me about some of the posts here is the rather tired argument that there is no difference between the political parties. It's an argument I almost never hear from fellow conservatives. I think it stems from left leaning people's dissatisfaction with the Labor Party's performance, both in government, opposition, and electorally, than any grounding in reality. The fact is this is the most left wing government we have had since Whitlam. It has taken our industrial relations system back decades, reversing reforms made even by Hawke and Keating. It has introduced overt wealth-redistribution in the Carbon Tax and Mining Tax. It has favoured large-scale government run projects over the more economic private sector, for example the NBN, and it has introduced reams of new regulation over not just the economy, but also aspects of people's day to day lives, which would be best left to ordinary people to decide. The most common background of Labor Mp's is either in a union or as a political staffer. And to top it off, it is attempting to curb the inflence of the loudest voices opposing its policies, with the recomendations of the Finkelstien Report. The argument that there is no difference between the two major political parties simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Finally I think the author gave the game away very early, when as an example of a chaotic PR system, he noted Israel.

OK dozer, so Labor’s done all those things you mention. But what would have the Libs done if they’d been in power over the same period? Entirely different things which would have significantly changed our economic, social and political landscapes for the better? I don’t think so.

If we look back over the last 3 decades or so, we’d really be battling to see much in the way of significant differences between them.

And especially when you look at full spectrum of political possibilities, they are indeed extremely close.

You wrote:

<< The fact is this is the most left wing government we have had since Whitlam. It has taken our industrial relations system back decades, reversing reforms made even by Hawke and Keating. It has introduced overt wealth-redistribution in the Carbon Tax and Mining Tax. >>

This seems to be contradictory. I mean, are you not in favour of better wealth distribution, with more tangible returns from our primary resources going to the average person and a bit less to the big mining companies and their mega-rich moguls?

Ludwig,

As I noted, the Hawke and Keating governments introduced crucial pro-market reforms in the 80s and 90s, continued under Howard and Costello, until many of these were reversed under Rudd and Gillard. In 2007, Rudd campaigned explicitly against Workchoices, and repealled it as soon as it could, and also undid many of the reforms made under Hawke and Keating. In this respect, to say it is the most left wing government since Whitlam, (or as you put it, in three decades,) is not only entirely accurate, it should be obviously so.

With regard to "entirely different things which would have significantly changed our economic, social and political landscapes for the better," here are a few:

The immigation system in place under The Howard government, although strict, allowed the government to increase both our immigration and refugee intake to the highest levels in our history. Labor quickly relaxed the strong border protection that had been in place, refugees resumed risking the dangerous sea voyage to our shores in large numbers, and both the immigrant and refugee numbers dropped;

With regard to the GFC, from which Rudd is often erronously praised for saving us, the experienced Costello would have been far more cautious with stimulus spending and so called nation building projects, and would have avoided falling so deeply into deficit.

One can think back to how the Kennet government payed off the massive state debt in Victoria as well as kickstarting economic growth in Victoria in the 1990s, and how the Howard government payed off the massive debt left to it by Hawke/ Keating.

These are huge differences in policy and results between Liberal and Labor. As I stated, to claim that they're almost indistinguishable does not stand up to scrutiny.

With regard to your quotation of mine being contradictory, as I have shown, the argument that the Rudd/ Gillard government has been more left wing than the Howard, Keating, Hawke, and Fraser governments is entirely factual. And wealth redistribution, in the form of its Carbon and Mining Taxes, is entirely consistent with its left wing economic outlook.

Concerning your argument about the benefits of such (a) tax(es), I differ strongly. It is far more efficient to let individuals and businesses decide directly how to invest the wealth they have worked hard to earn, than for government to distribute other people's money. Individuals and businesses are likely to work harder and take greater risks when they are more directly rewarded for their efforts. They generally have greater expertise and knowledge about where the investment is needed, and are far less likely to waste it when it's their own money. This does not by any means infer that the sick, old and infirm should be left to suffer.

The fact is that the best way to increase the overall wealth of a country is to reduce the penalties for creating it. Economies in the West were rejuvinated when taxes, which had been as high as 90%, were lowered. The Carbon and Mining taxes will reduce the incentives for individuals and businesses to take the chances necessary for a strong economy. It will reduce the overall earnings of the mining companies and thus tax receipts, and reduce the number or jobs directly and indirectly created by mining, reducing tax revenue even further. To assume that it is a simple equation of higher tax equals more money for the government to spread throughout the whole economy is incorrect.

It really astounds me how these discussions get so far off track!

The Author quiet rightly pointed out the fact that our current system does not elect our political representatives in proportion to the way we vote. His supporting discussion remained on subject by exploring a range of different systems and other relevant comments.

There are some excellent comments that are on subject, but sadly most are just white noise. They rabbit (maybe its bunny, this time of year) on about GFC’s, reds, blues, personalities, economics, politicians and yes even the carbon tax, to list a few.

The classic is we'll all be rooned if any of those minorities get their hands on power. The only question I have is which minority is being referred to? The fact is they are all minorities, even the NLP in Queensland fail to achieve a majority.

The fact is our current system is not democratic.

Democratic (adjective) – With equal participation by all -characterized by democracy in government or in the decision-making processes of an organization or group

Consider how the world might have been different if Al Gore who received the majority of votes was in the White House instead of George W Bush.

Dear Producer, What an excellent summation. Thanks