I guess there are three things to say...

1) "On the right there has been a demonising of the intelligentsia, which presupposes that this group is an exclusive enclave of the left."

All critics from the right of the left's intelligentsia note (from empirical data) that the voting habits of academics, especially from arts departments, are woefully out of kilter with the rest of society. Most university students will attest to the disproportionate influence that ideas of the political left have (so-called Cultural Marxism or Neo-Marxism... the adaption of Marx's basic narrative of struggle to various things such as labour, colonialism, sexual relations). The demonising of intelligentsia is never absolute, it is not to decrie intellectualism, but rather an attack upon the institutionalised culture of most arts and many government faculties.

The fact that the article reveals this concern about things pertaining to everyday life rather than flights of fancy shows that the "cultural viagras" of the left have been largely subdued.

2) Many politicians, like Howard, Downer, and so on, went to university when it wasn't free. A considerable proportion understand by experience what a full-fee degree entails.

3) Politics is not meant to be exciting or enjoyable, it's a civic duty to help in the running and administration of the polis. Exciting politics is often just smoke and mirrors. The most important aspects of government - balancing budgets, managing public servants and creating/reviewing policy - are not too interesting.

With politics you can't bring to mountain to Muhommad, you must bring Muhommad to the mountain. The political system is there for anyone to partake in, it's a matter of them choosing to do so. Blaming politicians is pointless because it's not their fault. Whilst it would be nice to have more state parliament on television, perhaps using ABC2 to get some Bear-Pit action seen would increase engagement, you can't really ask for more without placing too high a burden on our public officials... to do their jobs and put on a show at the same time.

So Charlie, you basically think this lifestyle you enjoy was all "heaven sent" how ignorant of you, in decades gone people fought long and hard to put people like you on easy street, and don't you forget it.

If ever there was a white flag from the left I guess that was it..

"...the voting habits of academics, especially from arts departments, are woefully out of kilter with the rest of society."

Interesting that you take this as an indication that academics are "wrong". Worldwide, the data show that the more educated a citizen is, the more likely they are to vote left-of-centre.

That's not due to the trashy conservative conspiracy theory about Marxist-feminist-environmentalists dominating education, it's because education allows people to view the world rationally and in a broad context, rather than through the prism of their own tightly-held prejudices.

People fought and died to protect the way of life we have, but people also had to think and analyse and debate in order to create our civil society in the first place. Before you condemn intellectuals and academics, take a look to the middle east and west Africa to see what society looks like without them.

No white flags here, merely the truth. The young have the benefits from our toil, and are either ignorant or ungrateful enough not to acknowledge where their lifestyle came from.

Then they say we are wealthy, which many of are not, we just did what they are too afraid to do, stand together to improve our families lives.

"The environment is still seen as an issue of the left despite almost unanimous concern across our society."

...yet the right didn't acknowledge the problem until a dollar value was attached to it.

"Most Australians opposed, and still oppose, the Iraq adventure..." This despite a fair amount of exclusively right-wing media commentary still in support (can you believe it?)

"Our concerns are not manifest via activism, protest or anything overtly political..."

Yep, tried that. Doesn't work. The largest public demonstration in a generation hit the streets saying 'no war' - only to be dismissed by our rightwing PM as "the mob".

The author is perhaps indicative of the majority of young voters today - mostly worried about "the mortgage or rent payments, the cost and availability of health care, child-care and education, crime and conflict in our society, and how much time we can spend with our families and friends."

Well, we get the government we deserve, then.

shonga the white flag reference was to charlie not you sorry

" To throw up something worth getting excited about".

Charlie that is a sad comment from a person of your age. Do you really need stimulus by a politician to become involved?

The social changes today that young people enjoy did'nt come from waiting, they came about,from people getting out of what comfort zone they had, and doing something about improving society and their lot!

I am bemused and astounded by the comments so far, I love the irony of the fact that DFXK launches straight into a left vs. right attack and, frankly, I'm not even sure that Shonga and I read the same article.
At any rate, it seems to me that Charlie was writing less about apathy and more about irrelevance. This article isn't a call-to-arms, it's a critique of the attention given to the so-called 'Culture Wars' when there are far more pressing issues at hand.
But then, my views are probably tainted by the fact that I enjoy a lifestyle that entails a life-long HECS debt, the insecurity of a rented home, cripplingly expensive childcare and a dying planet - a lifestyle that I am happy to acknowledge Shonga's generation so kindly bequeathed to me...

reality has a liberal* bias. That

*not Liberal ffs

One things for sure:

Two Lefts dont make it right.

The evidence is everywhere. So if you can add up, there's nothing more to say.

"Two Lefts dont make it right."
Neither do two Rights....you know it was nonsensical, so you get the nonsensical answer :)

I suppose it is understandable that no-one in the media or politics is prepared to state how fragile the lifestyle that Charlie extols is. With the result of the american mid-term election indicating that nothing will be done to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, and the consequent prospect that the next Middle East war (or the one after) could well go nuclear (with rather sad results for the oilfields), the truth is that the next generation is very likely to have to live far worse that we did. This, coupled with the ever mounting level of personal debt that continues to dominate people's lives, is going to end up with sad outcomes for many people. Even if war can be averted (and I am sure we would all join in hoping that it can), the end of the age of cheap oil will end the 150 year long trend of rising living standards. Unfortunately history teaches that declines rarely happen smoothly, but are usually punctuated by violence, wars, and business collapse. Is it any wonder that today's generation is disconnected?

The final phrases “my concern is not which one to choose but what difference the choice will make. People wonder why our generation seems so disengaged from politics”

I have always valued "choice".

Not the "choice I make" but the "right to make a choice".

I have always viewed the real battle in politics is not about the number of child care centers but being forced to accept, without right of dissent, what some remote and faceless bureaucrat tells me I am allowed, in terms of child care.

For “child care” you are free to substitute any of the other “issues” which Charlie has presumed matter (health, schools, jobs etc).

The battle was fought and has been won. This forum is an example of why, what I observe and support, is morally right as well as being politically, of the right.

If the left had “won”, we would not be allowed to express dissent. The cadres and commissars of the “central committee of all things socialist” would have political censors working feverishly around the clock to ensure no dissent ever appeared. The Stasi would follow-up to organize “re-education” for dissenters.

Without the tensions of real and pressing world conflict or real challenges to deal with, “Charlie’s generation” lack the "testing" of their values.

Instead they know only how rosie everything looks. They have not experienced high unemployment and were only a by-stander to recession and skyrocketing interest rates.
The cold war was something which had something to do with the Berlin Wall and was all too remote and too long ago too matter.

That was the battle. This article is just a whine. It attempts to trivialize the efforts which prior generations put into getting the world to where it is today.

Oh and whilst Charlie focuses on “his generation” he would do well to remember, his generation is not the only one which votes and it ain’t the only one which matters.

As SHONGA rightly asserts “in decades gone people fought long and hard to put people like you on easy street.”

Blimey, this is the second post where I'm finding myself agreeing with Sir Col (OBE) and Shonga. It must be the weather.

Col: "The battle was fought and has been won. This forum is an example of why, what I observe and support, is morally right as well as being politically, of the right.

If the left had “won”, we would not be allowed to express dissent. The cadres and commissars of the “central committee of all things socialist” would have political censors working feverishly around the clock to ensure no dissent ever appeared. The Stasi would follow-up to organize “re-education” for dissenters."

Gotta disagree Col. Both sides are as keen to suppress dissent and neither really has moral superiority in this regard.
Witness Howard's attitude toward the ABC, and he is now turning his sights toward the education system as his next big battle.

The extreme acts you refer to have occurred throughout history in socialist regimes, but to chalk that up to the left side of politics is going far too far I'm afraid.

Charlie I want you to go see a play it's called "waiting for Gotto".

Remember Charlie only you can save the world.

Feeling disempowered politically does not mean someone undervalues the right to choose. Nor does calling for new debate and language beyond the constructs of the 20th century mean that those struggles didn't matter, or are not important. I'd call it trying to look forward, and in particular move beyond the language of conflict and name-calling that I see is alive and well.

Col Rouge:
"Without the tensions of real and pressing world conflict or real challenges to deal with, “Charlie’s generation” lack the "testing" of their values."

So what's the war on terror - a walk in the park? You mention the Cold War - how many Australians died in that? How real or pressing was the threat in Bali, or London, where many young people died?!
As for high interest rates - we now spend more of our money on servicing mortgages than was ever spent in the '80s and '90s. Ever heard of skyrocketing house prices?

How exactly does the article trivialise past achievements? What I think he's observing is that politicians and the particular debate about the 'culture wars' don't resonate with most Australians, and across all generations. Obviously readers of this forum are excepted.

I won't even bother with the dribbling fantasy about communist rule in Australia (did you miss that he was talking about the 'culture wars' of the last five years, not the Cold War of the last 50?). Except to point out that by your argument, if the right had won we'd all be saluting Hitler. Did it ever occur to you that, just as right-wing governments aren't all fascist, neither are all left-wing governments communist dictatorships?

I have to agree wholeheartedly with funkylamb. I can’t believe that someone would wade so far into the “Culture Wars” that Charlie thinks are dead, in order to demonise the Left by aligning it with censorship and other stereotypical images. Don’t you see the amusing irony of saying that in response to this article? Do you really think the extreme Left is worse than the extreme Right?

On the other hand, I do think it emphasises and interesting point… contrary to Charlie’s claim the Culture Wars are dead – I think the response to this article shows quite strongly that they are not. People, including the readers of this article, are obviously still defining themselves down Left and Right sides of the debate. They feel associated with and connected to the side of the debate they agree with.

To say that the topic is dead, but politicians are keeping it alive is to miss the obvious point, as well, that politicians keep it alive. If the “green” issue is seen as a Left issue – even though people who are otherwise Right aligned also see it as an issue – then IT IS a Left issue – simply because everyone still thinks it is. It may swing green minded fence sitters to vote Labour (or Green, obviously). It makes Right winger types suspicious of the whole movement because it come form “the other side”.

Far from being dead, I think the cultural Left/Right divide is alive and kicking. I think they are simply irrelevant to some (mainly “Labour Right” / “Liberal Left”, fence sitting, swinging voters – like Charlie). There may be a lot of people in the middle – but I think the extremists are still there, and growing in number. This often happens, in my humble opinion, after a long period of the same government being in power.

"People wonder why our generation seems so disengaged from politics - sometimes ascribed to selfishness and ignorance. I think it’s because we’re waiting for our leaders, and the introspective system of factions and career politicians, to throw up something worth getting excited about."

Charlie. Guess what? If you could only now see how John Howard has successfully socially engineered Australia into the nasty state it's in now ! Sadly, you (and others of your ilk) are all to busy worrying about your job, your mortgage, your short term future or your long term aspirations of wealth concentration, to be concerned about the future of Australian society.

It's a neat trick isn't it?

I like the way Howard and his cronies have fooled a whole generation of people (sorry Charlie, you included) into believing that what's good for them is good for the country, or the community. NO IT'S NOT. It's what's good for you.

So. Go out and make your fortune (by the way, the Tax Office will keep track of you) and you'll be happy.

No? You'll be a selfish, isolated, little 'production unit' (see "Atlas Shrugged" - Ayn Rand) who is prepared to sacrifice (or be sacrificed by) anyone or anything that gets in the way of your own betterment.

Community? Society? They're OK as long as you don't have to pay the welfare benefits and they are potential 'consumer units' for exploitation!

Charles Forsyth says: "Australians are smarter, more cynical, sensitive, independent and selfless than the generals of both sides believe."

Yes generally speaking. However, if these people are indifferent to ideology, politics and what the policy makers are up to - how can they possibly make an informed choice when they go to vote?

On all sides of politics there is also a lot of concern about the biased media. The prime-time current affair show are just over-dramatic harassing of small-time scammers while the big issues get very little attention. SMH and Brissy's Courier Mail have Andrew Bolt but fail to balance A.B.s wind up with an opposing perspective.

Also, I have noticed that, if people do get interested, they often fall into the more "passionate" groups that have a tendency, not only to negative politicking, but also of taking advantage of people's lack of knowledge because of their prior disinterest. Magic solutions and scapegoats - how passé. Maybe some people aren't cynical enough?

Charles example of conservationists being both left and right is a great example -however, it has been the conservationists who have had to endure the attacks from the far right for their political incorrectness in the eyes of the right. This is despite the fact that a lot of conservationists main interest was in safeguarding the environment rather than politics.

A lot of right wingers are mistaken about the people they regard as left and a lot of left wingers are mistaken about the people that they see as right wingers. I think the hardcore zealots maliciously develop a culture of mistrust and division. Plenty of evidence on OLO.

We need to develop a culture where Australians are correctly and fairly informed, where discussion doesn’t end in immature slagging off and putting people into boxes while ignoring the ideas presented - so that Australians can utilise their positive characteristics. Yes most Australians may be smarter, more cynical, sensitive, independent and selfless than the generals of both sides believe – but it all counts for nought if the “generals” and their propaganda merchants take advantage of Australians' indifference.

"This is despite the fact that a lot of conservationists main interest was in safeguarding the environment rather than politics"

Ronnie, i disagree. The majority of conservationists are ideologically driven (utopian naturalists, wilderness romantics, Hobbian zealots.

Yes they may be more focused on the environment than on political systems but recent history also suggests that they are willing to prostitute themselves to political systems (Greens preferences rangling for example in Victorian election).

Up here in Qld there are various Green groups, most of them operating in isolation from each other and very protective and defensive about their ideological own take on the 'enivironment'.

My point is that like any fundamentalist groups they are prone to be attacked by all and sundry at any given time. Not just the right or the left, but by anyone who sees their posturing as nothing more than an urban political fashion statement.

Few if any of them really connect to the 'environment' they speak of.

Is conservation really an urban political fashion statement?
Ahh, so THAT'S why we need a change in climate before it becomes fashionable.

Funkylamb “So what's the war on terror - a walk in the park?”

Oh I like it when people ask me questions, it gives me opportunity to answer.

I used to live in UK

When a student I visited a pub in Birmingham. the IRA blew it up in 1974.
I was in a swimming pool with wife and daughter when we were told to evacuate, no time to get dressed, it was an IRA bomb threat.
I was confined in a tube train for 2 hours when IRA set bombs along the Bakerloo line.
I used to work in Bond St, next to Oxford St, favourite place for IRA bombs.
I have family members who served in Northern Ireland, defending Britain against the IRA terrorist.
The day I drove to the High Commission, for my interview to migrate to Australia, in 1982, I drove past Green Park and then back past Hyde Park. The IRA blew up the bandstand in Green Park and Lifeguards on horses in Hyde Park that very day.

So what do I think of this “War on Terror- a walk in the park?”
It sure is nothing like a walk in Hyde Park or Green Park in 1982.

As for “more of our money on servicing mortgages”
That is completely untrue.
Incomes have increased since then and the “affordability calculation” has remained constant, at around 30% of gross income, basically because lenders do not lend above that rate.

Go on all you want about “dribbling fantasy”. The UK Labour Party manifesto of 1979 included mass nationalization of the finance sector and the appointment of party political editors to all newspapers.

Ask someone from East Germany, Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia or Estonia how wonderful it was living in a workers utopia.

Do you remember exactly how elegantly Ceausescu, of Romania, exited from politics?

“Entryism” is the name of the process which Trotskyites and fellow travellers still use to infiltrate labor and green political movements.

Don’t bother to lecture me on communism/socialism, it is the politics of the mediocre, the envious and the small minded underachievers.

"...it is the politics of the mediocre, the envious and the small minded underachievers."
Sigh.
I don't think I was lecturing you Col Rouge but even if I was I hardly think it warrants this style of school-yard name-calling.
You make so many presumptions about my background it staggers me and I don't recall the IRA 'troubles' being part of the Cold War to which I refer.
Perhaps it would surprise you to discover that I too lived in London during that period but I am annoyed at myself for saying so - I am dignifying your vitriolic post when I should be ignoring it.

"Don’t bother to lecture me on communism/socialism, it is the politics of the mediocre, the envious and the small minded underachievers."

You sound like a freak. If you can say communism/socialism in the same sentence and cite examples where those ideologies were hijacked by corrupt, authoritarian dictatorships, then you should never be surprised if others use nazism/capitalism in the same sentence. Let me tell you something. Capitalism without socialism is pure, unadulterated exploitation. If you don't care if poor, disabled or just plain unlucky people die of starvation on the street and rot in ghettos in your country, go right ahead and declare your god to be capitalism and socialism to be satan, but you are an ignorant fool for doing so. If someone like Einstein was born to poverty in such a system, he would have a high chance of dying from disease or starvation, or become an indentured servant as a young child for the rest of his life. You should really make an effort to snap out of your hate for the left side of politics. It's given you protections you take for granted.

Rainer. You say: “My point is that like any fundamentalist groups they are prone to be attacked by all and sundry at any given time. Not just the right or the left, but by anyone who sees their posturing as nothing more than an urban political fashion statement.”

Rainer you’ve drawn false assumptions to take a poke at conservationists. Now that is fashionable.

My whole para: “Charles example of conservationists being both left and right is a great example -however, it has been the conservationists who have had to endure the attacks from the far right for their political incorrectness in the eyes of the right. This is despite the fact that a lot of conservationists main interest was in safeguarding the environment rather than politics.”

This is based on my experience when I was involved in environmental issues. I am no “true believer” with regard to politics. Yes our group were attacked from all quarters. Evil Marxists etc.. I even had to put up with physical attacks, threats, harassment and defamation because of my views on the environment. It nearly cost me my marriage. They got real dirty.

It was the right that lampooned people concerned about their environment and the environment generally; and to suggest a better way you had to live in a mud brick house and eat lentils or some such nonsense. Thus the right accused us of hypocrisy because we weren’t fundamentalists. We lived in a house and drove a car. Mind you this was twenty years ago in a rural town that was and is redneck to the core – you probably come from there. So our groups position was by no means “fashionable.”

No one can escape ideology hence I said a “lot” of conservationists’ “main” interest is the environment. Utopian naturalists, wilderness romantics, Hobbian zealots sort of fall into the ideology bracket but their concern with the environment is similar to Indigenous peoples – more cultural than political.

Rainer says that few of them (conservationists) connect to the environment. What can only the Indigenous peoples’ connect to the environment? What racist nonsense

Col Rouge makes the point that young people's values are 'untested' (i.e. not as good, strong or valued?) because of a lack of conflict. He seems in favour of increasing conflict or terrorist threats in order to 'smarten up' the youngsters! What, somehow we're spoilt by not living under the threat of violence? Then he launches into a bizarre, "I had it tougher then you" speech that would make Monty Python proud, further missing the point about the Cold War and Australia (um, not the UK). More revealing about Col than anything else ...

Yes, Col, incomes have risen but guess what, so have prices!
You're wrong - household debt has almost tripled as a percentage of family income since 1989, when interest rates were 17 per cent. At that time housing interest payments made up 6.1 per cent of household disposable income. Now they make up 9.1 per cent of household disposable income. Those figures are from the Reserve Bank by the way.

Finally - funkylamb was talking about your 'fantasy' of communist rule in Australia, not other countries (and not 27 years ago). This discussion, and the article, was about Australia. Today.

I think Col's a living example of why Charlie's over it ...

Col_Rouge you have bought your experiences and transplanted them holus bolus in another country on the other side of the planet. At the time the IRA was blowing up Hyde Park, Australia was extracting itself from its [voluntarily] involvement in the Vietnam War and the CIA was involved in removing the elected government of Australia. refer footnotes in Why Do People Hate America?: by Ziauddin Sardar,Merryl Wyn Davies. Davies is the BBC religious affairs reporter.

So in my experience the Liberal Party and its supporters has done more to curtail freedom of speech in this country than the left.

Australia differs from the UK because large infrastructure projects were initiated by government. The government established the CSIRO and CSL which I bet you're glad you have shares in now that Gardasil is coming to market. The government underwrote the establishment of the car industry here in 1947. It was a Labor government that introduced free health care and free university education.

I agree with Charlie that neither political party are addressing the pertinent issues for Australian voters, like health, education, aged care, sustainable environment, liveable cities, adequate food supply when transport costs increase, employment for australians in a globalised economy, making big business pay their fair share of taxes. Tax a corporation's turnover not its profit. And some businesses need government to establish a blueprint for the future so that they can make large scale capital investment to carry them thruogh the next 10 or 20 years.

Funkylamb, You asked me a direct question, I take no responsibility for you disliking my reply.

The point I was making is your suggestion “So what's the war on terror” alludes to an assumption that the contemporary “war on terror” is something new. My response was to enlighten you that it is not.

The Cold War was a war on terror, the terror of the KGB, Stasi and other official organizations of repressive politics.

As for the “IRA troubles” (oh what understatement) The IRA was and is a terrorist organization and also plays the role of a Mafia in Irish society with a significant involvement in drug distribution, bank robberies and other organized crime.

Steel “You sound like a freak” – well I hold the freakishly democratic view which allows you to disagree with me. The risk I face is the likes of you do not live up to similar standards and would attempt, through censorship and worse, to stop me expressing my “freakish” views.

It ain’t gonna happen so get used to it.

Errol “household debt has almost tripled as a percentage of family income since 1989”
So what. That merely means people who could have paid down their housing debt have extended it for reasons of their own choosing.

What they spent the money on was a private decision. The relationship between housing debt and affordability being influenced by the amount of car and credit card debit refinanced into “house debt” saving significantly on interest costs.

Ultimately, what has happened is the range of uses “real estate security” has been applied to has spread beyond the family home and now includes cars, plasma TVs and holidays etc.

The 30% affordability test remains constant and is what matters to new home buyers entering the market. With progressively increasing property valuations (at average 6% pa) after 10 years even an interest only mortgage (the lowest cost of servicing), which started out as 100% LVR would be, 56% of market value but the amount the property owner could borrow would still be constrained by the 30% affordability calculation.

"The IRA was and is a terrorist organization..." The Real IRA, you mean?

Col"well I hold the freakishly democratic view which allows you to disagree with me."
That's not freakish, but suit yourself.

"The risk I face is the likes of you do not live up to similar standards and would attempt, through censorship and worse, to stop me expressing my “freakish” views."
Not really. That reveals some paranoia, indicating your views are prejudiced in political discussions.

Steel,

you said: "you should never be surprised if others use nazism/capitalism in the same sentence."

Seeing as how "nazi" was an abbreviation for "National Socialist" I would say that such a statement was a contradiction in terms.

You reference to communism brought back to me a trip I made to the USSR in 1965. I was able to point out to my communist guide:

"I have just come from the Capitalist world where man is exploited by man. Thank heavens here it is the other way around."

"National Socialist"
That is like calling the Liberal party liberal ;) It's a misunderstanding. That's a great one about USSR.

I have always believed that there is far more that unites us than divides us. Many of us disagree with others on issues, however Charlie and some of his generation have had many things handed to them on a plate, which is what every generation hopes for the next, life will be easier for them, Rainer, Col Rouge and I would all wish this for our children.

What we don't wish, it that they take what we have given, and turn on us like snakes, with a lack of gratitude, appreciation or even recognition. Whether we are right or left thinkers is to me unimportant in this matter, Charlie needs to have respect for his elders. Both right and left systems work provided they are democratic, not communist,or facist both have different outcomes for society, the choice is ours, individually and collectively.

Thankfully we don't live in Stalin's U.S.S.R.on the extreme left, or Hitler's Germany on the extreme right.

Steel “That reveals some paranoia, indicating your views are prejudiced in political discussions.”

I suggest you remember, the “values” which I hold allow you, as well as me, to indulge our individual “prejudices”, as we see fit.

My experience recalls when socialists ran an economy which outlawed me from increasing my income beyond the levels prescribed in a deal between government and unions, which I was not a member of.

My experience recalls how an economy was run down to the point there was, supposedly insufficient funds for second time buyers of houses (only enough for first time buyers), when I was moving from one part of the country to another and wanted to sell and buy a property.

My experience recalls the “entryism” of Trotskyites and other pond life into the mainstream socialist party through branch stacking and fraudulent ballots.

My experience recalls how the UK Labour party, in the late 1970’s, included a policy for the appointment of political commissars with right of censorship to all newspapers and magazines in UK and a plan to nationalize the finance sector of the UK economy.

My experience recalls that same labour party was considered to be more “left wing” than the Italian communist party.

My experience recalls the collapse of the Berlin Wall, when ordinary Germans attacked it with hand chisels and hammers as they worked, with feverish prejudice and paraoid zeal, to escape the “nirvana” of the East German socialist state and the accompanying cheering from their neighbours in Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary etc.

I could go on with a litany of “prejudices” but that is enough for now.

The real danger lies in forgetting the circumstances which fermented such “paranoia and prejudice”, not just in me but in millions of other people all across Europe and beyond.

I will hang on to my “political prejudices”, I figure you, me and millions of others are alot better off just as long as there are enough people reading the lessons of history and remembering “why” some bad things happened which could have, otherwise, been avoided.

Australian public opinion is very right wing.

Australian press has been tightly controlled by Rupert Murdoch and Kerry Packer for 50 years and the media moguls have thought it was their right to only publish articles that promoted their world view. There is the famous story of termination of the first editor of The Australian - the newspaper started out with liberal views. The editor was called into to see Rupert and his resignation was announced - the former editor went to see every member of staff individually and told them "I did not resign, I was sacked".

Although most farmers are paid up members of the National Party they may not be aware of it, they only pay $2.10 or $4.20 or $10.50 or rarely $21 per year. Most of the party funds are provided by lobbyists. Many of the stated farm policies only benefit large farms not the family farm that has managed to double in size every generation, or worse stagnated and become less viable.

The current government has shown itself to be particularly devoid of equitable social policy - hell bent as it is on selling off everything of value, especially if it generates revenue. If health insurance wasn't a profitable business then the established large health funds wouldn't have been bought up by overseas concerns. I can remember when my wealthy grandparents became frail, the standard of health care available was considerably poorer than it is now because health providers, being very mindful of recouping the costs of their services, didn't offer expensive or lengthy treatments. And because most patients didn't have money to pay, when a patient with the wherewithall to pay came along the practitioners didn't have the experience to use the better practices. Hmmm maybe this is the solution to the aging population problem.

Billie “Australian press has been tightly controlled by Rupert Murdoch and Kerry Packer for 50 years”

I would like you to give me a single example of how, today, Kerry Packer controls anything, tightly or otherwise.

As for National party members, what in earth does someone else’s political party membership costs have to do with you or me?

I vote Liberal (no surprises there) but I don’t pay a thing in membership or anything else for the privilege.
Conversely, I have never voted labor but any time those idiots get power, it costs me heaps.

The current government recognizes the following facts

“Social ownership”, invariably instituted through government monopolies (regardless of the method of incorporation) is as corrupting as any other form of monopoly.

The reason sports events have umpires instead of leaving the scoring and rulings to the players is simple, no one can do both jobs at the same time.
As business operator and business regulator, Government can perform either one role well or both roles badly.

Whilst the arrogance of socialists politicians allows them to pretend they know what is best for the rest of us, the practical humility of the incumbent Liberal government recognizes that “Social Ownership” leaves the government in that impossible dual role of regulator as well as operator.

Business requires access to growth funds. Whilst a government enterprise rely on funding from the public purse and the issues of, for instance, should new Boeings for Qantas be deferred and the money used for hospitals or do them both on borrowed funds and leave the problem for the future (the preferred socialist answer), such strategies create inflation (expenditure exceeding income) and lead to recession.

Social Ownership creates social corruption, as Margaret Thatcher famously said

“We want a society where people are free to make choices, to make mistakes, to be generous and compassionate. This is what we mean by a moral society; not a society where the state is responsible for everything, and no one is responsible for the state.”

Excuse the subtlety Col, but Bushbred might recognise the membership costs for the Nationals are one guinea, two guneas - indicating that farmers were joined up in 1958 and because farms run the same bank accounts their memberships are still being withdrawn, after the wheat cheque, irrespective of their current political allegiance. This allows the Nationals to say they represent rural Australia when their leaders clearly do not. McGauran lives in the red light and homosexual corner of St Kilda and names women who have had abortions in parliament and Ryan has a weasel face and talks spitefully.

You might be happy with federal funding to private schools, paying to see the dentist, optometrist or doctor but the 50% Australian adults whose income is less than $26,000 per annum expect a safety net. Remember Col that if the great Australian public is screwed too far into the ground you will lose your domestic market and be forced to export and maybe like the English capitalists of the 18th century try to persuade the country to embark on imperial adventures to find willing customers.

Not all Australian businesses are microbusinesses that require limited capitalisation. Businesses like farms, enginerring works, manufacturing require high levels of capitalisation and they need some boundaries within which to work. At the moment the personal cronies of LJH are dictating the terms to the detriment of microbusiness.

I believe that a society where users pays inevitably has lower standards. EG Indonesia has some very wealthy people and when they become serviously ill they travel to Australia for health care. And I can't see why something that was started by the Australian public should be sold to overseas corporations. An insider view is that Medibank Private is the biggest health insurer because it is more efficient than HBA or AXA.