Thank you Tristan for putting some Left positions clearly. But when you use these statements to query Mr Beazley's pronouncements you are wasting your time. What you are talking about are matters of governmental social policy. What Mr Beazley (and just about all other politicians) is talking about is how to get enough votes to win an election. These statements are definitely not in the same speech register. You can't apply logic to politician's statements. Sorry, I am so cynical about our politics. Too much politics and not enough wise government.
I like the idealism of your social policy but I question its efficiency. I would like a world where it was "to each according to their need, and from each according to their ability" and I tried to practice that for a time. But sadly the world does not work like that.

Whow, this article has stirred me into a second post. I wish the ALP would indeed adopt the policies that you advocate and state them clearly. Then it will go down in a massive landslide, but honest and true to its principles in defeat. Instead what we will get is a focus-group directed, popularist, play-it-safe, don't-offend-anyone, ALP campaign that gets 50% plus or minus 3% of the vote after preferences. The true left should stand up and be counted, and take it on the chin electorally.

You can only achieve change in Government not sitting on your moral high horse in the political wilderness.

I don't agree with all of Tristan's ideas but some may have merit.

Having lived under Conservative and right wing Labor I will take the latter every time. They may not be Left enough for some, but for the mass of people they are at least Left of the lot who are there now.

In a liberal democracy change will always be incremental which means Labor has to stop being a permanent opposition and get in and stay in and make changes over time.

Can any political party really promise any tax cuts? Given our inflation rate and the impending recession, I think not.

Easy times: there is a lot of movement of scientists back and forward (which is good), so its easy to find examples of foreign scientists in Australia (particularily at the best places like the CSIRO). According to Hugo, the actual number and demographics of those that there are is currently unstablished (tracking people is hard).

The real problem is the future, since the average age of the workforce is high (over 50 in universities if I remember correctly), and many competitor countries have the same problem. Thus there will be high competition for the same people which will make it both harder to keep people in Australia and get the type of people you want from OS. I don't see high taxes helping in this respect.

Tristan: I'm also glad you're so honest about your position (especially at election time). My suggestion is that instead of increasing taxes to pay for infrastucture and the like, try including people's homes in benefit calculations. This way you wouldn't have people paying benefits to others that own more fixed assets then they can ever dream of. That might be very politically unpopular, but I don't see why people without money (often young) are subsidizing those that do, even if those assets are fixed.

Tristan Ewins said: "How is investing in infrastructure and services "anti-growth" and "anti Australia". Is there some essentially Australian neo-liberal ideology that we all must subscribe to in order to be recognised as citizens? Furthermore - infrastructure contributes to growth."

The economic rationalist aversion to infrastructure investment is...well...irrational. Heavyweights such as the RBA and OECD have explicitly warned that Australia's widespread infrastructure constraints, especially deficiencies in export-oriented infrastructure, are stunting growth and putting upward pressures on inflation. According to Wayne Swan, addressing the backlog of economic infrastructure projects could add an extra 1% to long-term GDP growth and 2% to export growth.

The Federal Government can seem to find a few billion here and there to fund improvident and inflationary election bribes, but according to Howard/Costello/Minchin, infrastructure investment is unproductive and risks a budget deficit. I think I even recall Minchin once asserting that infrastructure investment wasn't the Commonwealth's responsibility. Better, Howard/Costello/Minchin argue, to let the States and the private sector foot the bill for essential nation-building projects.