Killarney..

Maybe true to some degree, but more true is the damage done by clash of ideologies, and the resultant circus!
This clash under the heading of Democracy.
Something to be said for autocracy, and firm rule!

One of the prerequisites for democracy appears to
be advanced economic development.
Advanced economic development may not necessarily
lead to democracy but it is rare to find stable
democracy in societies that are not economically advanced.
Advanced industrialisation is often associated with
political democratisation. One reason for this relationship
is that an advanced economy usually contains an urbanised
literate and sophisticated population that expects some
participation in the political process. Another reason is that
these societies tend to be politically stable because their
large middle-class has a stake in the system and is
reluctant to support political upheavals of any kind.

These countries can afford to offer citizens political
alternatives without fearing that the society would be
torn apart in any resulting conflict. In societies with a
large, impoverished lower class such as nations of Africa, Asia,
Latin America - there is likely to be strong opposition
from the ruling class to any meaningful extension of
democratic rights.

Of course there are some exceptions in the general link
between economic development and democracy. In particular
the totalitarian nature of some societies which has made
them highly resistant to democracy no matter how
economically advanced they are.

Killarney,

Regarding your post, the sentiments of which I generally agree with and directing my comment to the last para in particular, it is the move to the corporatisation of federal agencies and deliberate political direction AWAY from community benefit (and the cooperation between public service agencies that went with the ideal) hat have thrown the baby out with the bathwater where identifying, providing and coordinating better public services are concerned.

That was and remains the policy choice on BOTH sides of the federal Parliament, make no mistake about that.

The major players in the federal parliament and including the blackmailing Greens are damned lazy, more often than not slavishly following policy 'initiatives' from overseas, the UK in particular, even where the practical lessons learned should advise a different choice, or no action at all.

The other issue I would concentrate on is eternal vigilance to protect freedom of speech. That is the only available back-stop to protect democracy.

"However, even in established democracies, there are pressures that threaten various democratic foundations. A democratic system’s openness also allows it to attract those with vested interests to use the democratic process as a means to attain power and influence, even if they do not hold democratic principles dear. This may also signal a weakness in the way some democracies are set up. In principle, there may be various ways to address this, but in reality once power is attained by those who are not genuinely support democracy, rarely is it easily given up."

http://www.globalissues.org/article/761/democracy

I've got a question. Can any government really
be held responsible for the failure of infrastructure
investment projects? From my reading on the
subject - there seems to be quite a few issues involved
and things are not as clear cut as they at first appear
particularly considering that there are more than just
one tier of government involved and new governments also
inherit programs from previous ones. Here is a link that
dealt with the issue during the last election which shows
the complexities that can come up:

http://theconversation.com/election-factcheck-has-public-infrastructure-investment-fallen-20-under-the-coalition-59533

Anthony
Have a close look at what is being done to Sydney.
As someone is arguing today in the Herald, much too much traffic is being jammed onto our roads: cars, 4 wheel drives, B-doubles, huge cranes, and truckloads of containers. It was no surprise that a smash occurred this week and locked up the M1.
Railways are there for a reason: to carry heavy traffic long distances. Every trainload of goods or people is one not on our roads. Where is the investment in more railways and better trains? (Compared with huge building programs e.g. in London)

All very well to build more and more sports stadiums (funded by gambling houses and so on) and expect people to get there by road. Or dream that lots of people can be carried on this nonsensical light rail which has already made a mess of Randwick and Kingsford and George Street. Someone made a lot of money out of that construction- but does it help move people efficiently? No.

We can't keep cramming more and more people onto roads, building more tollways and so on. Sydney traffic is a nightmare now on the weekend as well as at peak hour. And they want to bring more migrants to Sydney?

Albanese,

Coming from a government that wasted $16bn building school halls that were worth a fraction of that, and contribute close to bugger all to the economy, Turnbull and Abbott are doing 100% better than you.

You forgot to include the $50bn subs project in SA that Labor ignored for nearly a decade.