Rhian ; our Conservatives may not be taking it to the utmost extreme all at once. But they are about ever-smaller government - where government is already very small by international standards. And they are for further labour market deregulation and fewer industrial rights and liberties. And they are about a less progressive tax system.

When you consider what was accepted in Menzies' day (a top rate of over 60 per cent) compared with now - It is clear that today's Conservatives in Australia don't seem to have any notion where their quest for smaller government, lower and more regressive taxes, lower welfare, more user pays - would ever end. The logical end-destination seems to be the Hayekian utopia....

Neo-liberalism is the dominant Ideology. It is easier for a Liberal to get away with having a thing for Hayek than for a social democrat to promote redistributive reform, a robust mixed economy, economic democracy, a better welfare state, social wage, social insurance etc.

Ask a Liberal Wet from 30 years ago what they would think of the economic policy consensus today then they would think of it as extremism. Margaret Thatcher was very much defining the 'Conservative mainstream' when she said 'there is no such thing as society'. That's still their thinking today. Hockey and co with "the end of the age of Entitlement." But coming up on $50 billion a year in superannuation concessions slanted overwhelmingly towards the rich....

It boils down to naked class interest in the end. Governing for the upper middle class and the wealthy - while there is 'divide and conquer' playing on peoples fears of refugees. And they dare to call any progressive initiative 'class warfare'.

BTW Maybe the far Left still uses language of class war. But in 'the mainstream' its overwhelmingly a term used to stigmatise any kind of progressive redistributive initiative from Labor. Since Hawke it's all been talk about 'reconciliation' - where in the background the poor, the vulnerable and the working class are in fact stuffed over.

Hi Tristan

If conservatives’ main objective is ever-smaller government, they have done a very bad job of it. Commonwealth Government spending as a percentage of GDP has fluctuated in a narrow band of 23-27% for the past 40 years. It is currently 25.9% of GDP, which is higher than any year of the Rudd-Gillard governments except 2009-10. The forward estimates show spending expected to remain above 25% of GDP, which would make Abbott one of our highest spending PMs ever. Incidentally, Thatcher also presided over an increase in government spending as a percentage of GDP, despite her small government rhetoric.

I’m not sure conservatives are about a less progressive tax system, but it’s not an unreasonable assumption. But it’s one thing to say they want the system to be less progressive than it currently is, and quite another to imply they don’t want it to be progressive at all, which you said earlier.

On what basis do you say, “It is easier for a Liberal to get away with having a thing for Hayek than for a social democrat to promote redistributive reform, a robust mixed economy, economic democracy, a better welfare state, social wage, social insurance etc”? I can’t remember ever hearing a Liberal say they “have a thing” for Hayek; nor have I met a social democrat who is reticent about advocating redistributive reform etc.

Hi Rhian ; Ok I'll concede that under Costello there was an increase in middle class welfare. And a lot of the spending legacy from Rudd remains. Because the Government knows if it pulls the rug out from under all spending right now it will hit the economy hard. But their long-term orientation is clear - as they keep moving to cut tax. They also would have implemented much harsher Budget measures had they not been blocked in the Senate.

YES!! Oh, YES!

At time of writing, Jeremy Corbyn has just won the leadership ballot with 59.5% of the primary ballot - a win that is unprecedented in British Labour history.

What to expect now?

The history of popularly elected leftist leaders does not inspire confidence - destabilisation, smear campaigns, stubborn uncooperation, military coups ... the usual tactics employed by those whose massive power and influence impose zero tolerance on any form of politics that challenges their control of corporate business as usual.

The UK Labour and media establishment has been particularly vindictive in its determination to prevent Corbyn from getting this far, while the Tories have tried to remain bemused observers of the Blairite Labour party imploding on itself.

For better or worse, the politics of the UK directly influences the politics of the Western world - including Australia's.

We are moving into 'interesting times'.

Hi Tristan,

This might be a bit a cheap shot, but would you suggest that, in the old Soviet Union, in say 1987 after seventy years of workers' state, there were fewer poor there than in the US ? Okay, it's hard to say now, sin e the Mafia of the old KGB has taken over power and divided resources up amongst themselves. But how many old babushkas will we have to see on TV still hoeing their little patches, with a few chooks and pigs, from dawn to dusk, until they drop ?

Back to Corbyn, the Left's gift to the Conservatives: if I were in the slightest conservative, I would suggest that they are home and hosed for the 2020 elections. The Labor Party will either disintegrate, or stay together - and wither away together.

This next weekend's elections in Greece might point the way: I predict a win for a New-Democracy-led coalition, which will eventually, after huffing and puffing, include Tsipras' Syriza Party, followed by a splintering of the Left. Very depressing.

Anti-austerity - 'we shouldn't ever have to pay our bills!' - is not a long-term solution. Live beyond your means, build up debt, and you either have to work (and be taxed) your way out of it, or take a massive cut in living standards. One way or the other, the credit card has to be paid off.

As for Corbyn, I haven't heard him often but everything I've heard has been the words of an idiot. But I suppose the Labor Party is now stuck with him until 2020. Any more brilliant ideas like this one, and Cameron will still be Prime Minister in 2030.

Joe

The USSR wasn't exactly my ideal ; But material living standards were very high in some Western countries (interpreted as material abundance) because of the ruthless exploitation of economic spheres of influence. Including in the Middle East and Central and South America. In the US as well there was a highly stratified class system. If you were in the classes of the destitute and the working poor you probably wouldn't appreciate that abundance so much. Finally, Western social democracies did alright - especially the Nordics. Corbyn is no communist - he is more of an old school democratic socialist. And the only reason democratic socialism is considered 'unviable' is because of the power of Ideology - mediated through the monopoly mass media for decades now. With many of the world's social democratic parties just 'rolling over'. Strategic re-socialisation, a more progressive tax system, a stronger social wage, a fairer welfare system, sharing the burden of assisting refugees across Europe - shouldn't be seen as 'extreme' policies.