First I have been a Labor member since 1994.

Secondly it is in the power of the Federal Government to provide tied grants to the states in the areas I discuss. States have limited capacity to raise funds as Ballieu is discovering.

The Federal Government *is* becoming more involved in Health funding, and we are moving towards a National Curriculum. As I discuss (if you'd actually read the article) Gonski calls on the Govt to fund 30% of $5 billion. (ie: $1.5 billion)

It's a useful construct for you to say electricity prices are a "federal responsibility". But one of the real disasters for Cost of Living was privatisation of energy assets by State Govts (of both persuasions)... No it is not the traditional way - But it would be possible for the Federal Govt to step in and build/fund new infrastructure. Again because govt is at an advantage when borrowing, and need not pay dividends to shareholders - Hence it can PASS SAVINGS ON TO CONSUMERS.

'Collective consumption' in Health includes Medicare and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Do you really propose getting rid of the PBS? Your friends in the Conservative parties would have a fit if they knew you were suggesting such a thing - as the consequence for taxpayers/consumers would be power prices going through the roof without centralised purchase from the drug companies)

Labor is in a bad spot after over two years of incessant corporate media propaganda. You can conveniently ignore it because 'it's not your side' which is suffering - but this is bad for democracy and for pluralism.

Home Insulation also hurt Labor badly; as did Gillard taking so long to implement the carbon tax. (hence giving time for endless and damaging speculation) But the 'public debate' is contrived and constantly being reframed to damage Labor. As I argue - only very substantial new initiatives can 'break through' at this point.

Your suggestion I am a 'hinderance' to Labor because of my 'radical' plan to expand the social wage by 1.5% of GDP is a transparent ploy for pragmatists to adopt YOUR Ideology.

*Again because govt is at an advantage when borrowing, and need not pay dividends to shareholders - Hence it can PASS SAVINGS ON TO CONSUMERS.*

Ah, if only things were so simple, Tristan. Back when Telstra
was a Govt monopoly, they used to screw me 9$ an hour for using
the internet. Nobody cared, because all those Govt employees were
growing fat and lazy on their Govt paycheques and there was no need
to put in the slightest effort. Now show me which Govt departments
work incredibly efficiently and pass savings back to consumers.

Only competition changes things, because people have a habit of
feathering their own nests, when they can. Govt monopolies can.
So human nature remains the problem Tristan, despite your dreaming.

Tristan,Labor are finished.Caput,finito,dead.We need a new political party to replace them.

BTW when I referred to "power prices going through the roof" in the last message I should have written "drug and medicine prices"; In the context I was referring to the Pharmaceutal Benefits Scheme and the prior cobntributor's ideological opposition to collective consumption.

Tristan, I admire your passion and defend your right to express concern for the vulnerable.

However, i side with the view that such days are over in terms of higher welfare spending.

Spending on social welafare is likley to be cut in both the short and longer term.

But this does not mean that fairness cannot be accomodated in the reforms. Indeeed, whether it is Labor or the Coaltion, future policy respectibility (or prowess) will depend very much on good scholars that can help inform public debate and political leaders of how best to make structural reform.

The idea of spend, spend, spend is a nonsense for Australia given its industry structure, relaiance on foreign investment, regional posiiton and so on.

But the idea of a smart and progressive Australia, acting as a smart Western society, remains a real possibility. Justwatch Landline each week and observe just how sharp debte can be.

But yes, life is now that much harder and we can't just take and take, as Hasbeen suggests. There needs to be compromise, just as there was in previous decades when Australans accepted the general thrust of eco reform.

I think Aust does have players that are capable of smart change, including busines, unions and so on, although i increasingly have less time with some of the silly free trade rants. Have faith in democracy and let us make it work with the utmost respect to the people, an aspect that Labor has lost with its carbon tax, perhaps the greatest ever mistake Labor has made.

Chris;

First thankyou for responding politely and respectfully. I will try and return the favour. :)

You say the days of higher welfare are over; By that do you include Newstart where we are around the worst in the world in supporting the unemployed - despite strenuous active labour policies? And keep in mind the reality that those on lower incomes are more likely to spend their money and provide stimulus for the economy.

Also I think the idea that cutting welfare is 'inevitable' would be convenient for the Conservative side of politics - as they have locked themselves into an austerity framework in order to pay for tax cuts which will do the Australian people and the Australian economy no good in any case.

Recall also that we are down the lower end of the spectrum when it comes for the size of our social wage and tax base. And take areas such as dental, pharmaceuticals, aged care - where collective consumption would give people a better deal. Why 'leave it to the market' if this increases cost structures for consumers? And there's a similar case to be made re: infrastructure.

Also I don't understand how our industry structure would mean we can't sustain a progressive tax-transfer system, avenues for collective consumption, more efficient public-finance of new infrastructure etc. Also if there are particular sectors which need assistance to remain competitive why not run a discriminatory industry policy?