Lindsay,

The power of exhortation is great, properly managed. The government is arguably good at it in some ways. Anti-smoking campaigns have got be the prime example. As for road-safety, very much more could be done.

But exhortation is nothing new. Governments have been exhorting us to worship GDP and never-ending economic growth forever. The time for this sort of thing to stop has well and truly passed.

Time to start exhorting sustainability, with means approaching limits to growth, a stable economic regime and a steady GDP, accompanied of course by a stable population.

These are the things that really matter. If governments can’t do this in a very earnest manner in the very near future, with at least as much hard-hitting publicity as the anti-smoking campaigns, then they will be foregoing their duty of care to the community, and we will all be pretty well rooted before too long.

Unfortunately, you don’t even touch on this sort of thing in your article.

Now what would really set Labor apart from Liberal, and attract an election-winning level of support?

SUSTAINABILITY…. instead of the terrible spiral of continuous economic growth, driven by continuous population growth, which needs continuous economic growth just to provide the same standard of living for ever-more people, without increasing the average standard of living for the nation, but rather, taking it backwards…. and forever increasing pressure on our already stressed resource base and environment!!

THIS philosophy presents Labor with its greatest opportunity ever! They WILL find mass support in the general populace for genuine efforts towards sustainability and against the continuous growth paradigm.

A perfect opportunity to really express positive exhortation.

Lindsay,

There is some role for an expansion of the areas that provide universal opportunity. It is really a question of how they are paid for and who provide them. I would agree that health and education will increase in size. It is a question of how much more the government chips in in meeting this expansion. I for one consider that school funding can increase overall. I would also consider that if done well, vouchers for secondary schooling could be more equitable than the current system. So it is a very complex scenario.

Labor must make a case for the "ladder of copportunity" and increasing assistance over time for the struts that provide universal opportunity. I am not convinced it can afford though the sort of secondary education policy that advances state services at the expense of those provided by the market. ie. State funding of schools can and should increase (amazingly I agree with Tristan) but not at the significant expense of the private system.

I think you need to examine the role of the Third Sector, and indeed whilst the Blair government can be criticised on many fronts, the attempt to promote services at the most local level, must become a wider policy goal in Australia. I can only see the ALP linking with the community and wider civil society if it reforms its preselection to reward participation in these forums (perhaps by primaries or by affiliating forums outside of unions). I have no doubt you support this. What about you Tristan? I can see you coming around to the right thinking method of renewal?

Cheers,
Corin

So what have we got here?
All I can see is that a member of Federal Labor is too afraid to criticise the Federal government.
As the Federal government turns right, Federal Labor turns right . . . right.
No wonder they don't get anywhere and will remain in opposition.

Corin - I might support local delivery of services where funding is provided federally - so that it derives from progressive taxation. I'm not sure, however, which services you're referring to, or how this would be different than the current scenario.

re: primaries - I think that it would be a huge diversion of resources from otherwise productive campaigning and thus would be an error.

re: Lindsay - I think Lindsay has leadership ambitions and thus feels compelled to fit within the hegemonic discourse. Part of this is support for 'small government' and the disavowal of any traditional social democratic agenda. I guess the same could be said of any leadership aspirant - but the proof would be in the pudding - should any member of the Left ever become Federal ALP leader. At least Lindsay's on record, however, as support the resocialisation of Telstra infrastructure - paid for thorugh privatisation of services. This is better than nothing.

Tristan,

On significant matters people often discuss things like petrol sniffing, and other anti-social behaviour as matters Howard neglects. But really, the size of government has no genuine effect on whether these things occur widely. Indeed welfare dependent areas normally suffer most.

The real issue is that non-profit independent bodies are often far better at tackling many of the roots causes of poverty than government can achieve.

This is obviously a gross simplification but no get my drift.

On schools, I am very much in favour of rewarding schools on performance, so long as a general standard is maintained. I am also not averse to parents being far more heavily involved in schools, and unlike many in the left of centre not averse to non-secular public school, so long as the secular kids still have a secular choice to attend.

Vouchers - very much more radically - provide each child with a set budget to spend on education as the parents deem fit. i.e. each kids gets a budget set by the Commwlth, they can use for the public or use for private, if they use for public they are likely to have a larger amount left for spending on specialist assistance, etc. This is a real biggy for the ALP, and they'll never do it, but I'm convinced that it could be very good educationally and promote quality and access for all if done well.

I still diagree on primaries and diversion - go see Live8 or up your street the Howard Dean campaign. Direct campaigning raises more money than it costs if you ask me. Just think about all those mums and dads who don't really "connect" with the ALP but sympathise getting involved - $5 from each hey! Canididates and Unions would also get an opportunity to actually campaign rather than simply turning up to rallies and courts.

Cheers,
Corin

Lindsay if the ALP is to get anywhere Federally, it must take a different approach to the one you are taking. Try taking responsibility for a change instead of palming it off. The State ALP GOVERNMENTS ARE ONLY STILL THERE BECAUSE THERE DOES NOT SEEM LIKE ANYTHING IS PRESSING ENOUGH TO CHANGE TWEEDLEDEE FOR TWEELDEDUM. The public don't have a real choice, who represents pensioners, low income families $35,000 p.a. families? The Labor Party used to, but not for the last 30 years, wake up to yourselves, the only reason the average weekly earnings are $53,000 p.a. is highly paid executives, and public servants in the military.

How much do you think shop assistants, clerks, console operators, etc earn, not much I can assure you, and the party they traditionally voted for thinks they are on $60,000 p.a. you should be ashamed of yourself. We don't have a political voice anymore, which is why we tend to punish those who are supposed to represent us.