Yes - the giant move to the right. The Liberals are really partly clothed Republicans while Labor is a clouded Liberal Party.

So, I'm a radical which now must mean I'm anti-establishment and hopless out of touch with reality in need of re-education run by the thought-control police.

Perhaps one might ask - How did this all come about - was it all those middle class welfare recipients who now think they are well on their way to becoming millionaires not realising how they have imprisoned themselves in cloaks of respectibility but terrified of the next interest rate rise.

Yep, fundamentalism in politics is really taking over. The truth is that fundamentalism in history usually means a step backwards because people are gutless to take a true democratic step forward, these days frighteningly moving towards Heil - Heil - Heil.

It is interesting that today's right-wing politics still are again using 19th century terms like the freemarket economy, as well as economic rationalism, both terms as Adam Smith gave warning, only meaning freedom for the business entrepreneurs to break way for the growing acme of global trade, the ancient term Promised Land and the newer term neo-colonialism, only giving more freedom to our modern business and corporate racketeers.

And so we are getting an increasing record number of multi-billionaires, many of them joining the formerly evil gambling den mobsters, our dumb public still believing that with a system operating with fair-minded terms like freedom and rationalism under go, everything must be not too much a big con, but very hunky dory.

It is indeed interesting to observe that to be a social democrat is to be increasingly a radical. Andrew Scott, a brilliant writer on labour politics, pointed out that even the labor left now is just basically calling for a return to Keynesian macro-economic policy not much extra. What is even more interesting though is that the broader populations views remain largely social democratic in character (even in the US). This suggests that the main function of politics in Australia is to serve corporate power and any pragmatic appartchicks in the ALP know who they have to appease to win elections. The preferences of the population are not reflected in elections. That's what we call democracy.

Oh, by the way that's a great blog.

Very interesting article - however I believe that in common with political scientists in general the writer allows the main participants in our political sector the benefit of too much introspection. Our political leaders are poll driven, and in my view most moves in the political chess game derive from attempts to second guess the next poll rather than adhere to a considered political philosophy. Few political leaders today have a genuine commitment to a political philosophy - they simply join a party at a young age and stick with it through the laborious selective processes. The writer seems to discount the most significant factor in our political process - ie personal ambition and the desire to obtain a very good job.

Gets the thinking juices flowing!

I often wonder if we need to shift our focus to talking about economic democracy and improving peoples economic rights ?

The left emphasis has historically been on centralised State control which has been problematic as there have been major failures of State provision, not least of which has been the lack of flexibility or diversity.

Maybe we should shift the left focus to a more distributed democratic power, more power for shareholders, workers, consumers and the lik

I think supporting economic democracy is part of the answer. Wage earner funds, works councils, subsidies and supprt for co-operative enterprise - are part of the answer.

But I'm wary of stigmatising the state completely - there are some things the state still does better. That includes running Government Business Enterprises to provide competition in oligopolistic markets; providing services and infrastructure such as banking and communications on the basis of need - not just to maintain share value; financing infrastructure at the most competitive rates; progressively re-distributing wealth through the tax transfer system, welfare state, social wage...

And yes, a lot of this sounds very radical now - even though it was part of the mainstream 30 years ago. The ALP's drift to the Right under Hawke and Keating, and in Opposition, has left social democrats feeling left-behind, isolated, voiceless... As I argue in an article to be published here tomorrow, the ALP will not even consider $10 billion (1% of GDP) of progressive tax reform to pay for new programs in education, health and welfare. This would be deemed too 'radical'.

And rights at work is also crucial. With the ALP seeking to repress pattern bargaining, ban political strike action and maintain the ABCC - and the ACTU feeling it has to 'go along for the ride' - who will stand up for workers' rights?

Certainly the ALP Left should not allow itself to be 'contained' and silenced by demands for discipline - for all for 'fall in behind the leader'. Unless the ALP Left speaks out, what credible voices are there for an alternative social and economic vision? But if the ALP Left finds it has little leverage on policy - despite holding almost half the Conference floor - perhaps it is time to start considering alternatives. A new party of the Left in Australia, aimed at the mainstream, winning the support of welfare groups and Left unions not currently affiliated to the ALP - could have the same kind of impact as the Left parties in Germany and Sweden, or the Socialists in Holland.

One difficulty I see here is the difference between governance and political theatre. Howard has been brilliant at the theatre of democracy and for most of us we've only understood his philosophy in retrospect.

We still expect that the theatre will resemble the philosphy in some way, but if Howard had clearly enunciated his vision in 1996 we'd be a very different country. The problems Howard's having now with issue ownership suggest that, culturally, we're still as much social democrats as we've been for the past 50-odd years.

Perhaps the labor movement would have a more secure future if it took care to match the theatre and the policy, because it's not in anyone's interests to get business cranky with a lopsided agenda.

Naive as that might sound, it's a tactic nobody's tried recently unless Rudd is sincere. Sounds good to me anyway.

if you had democracy, maybe socialism would follow?

Let's hope it is true that us Aussies are still natural social democrats, meaning that we are still ready to help a neighbour in trouble, not like our growing multi-billionaires who will only help if it makes news and adds to growing prestige.

Certainly the terms left-wing loonie and academic fruitcake has helped push such democratic thoughts aside, and even more borderline when Howard reorganises the Uni' Humanities when he wins the election.

Just lately he is proving himself so adept at agenda thievery or coming in on the grouter as with Global Warming, reckon if he does get in He might come at anything, even asking for the proverbial Heil-Heil-salutation from an Adoring Public.

Voters have the say about party's directions, you after all can not plant pumpkins and wonder why you are not harvesting spuds.
The result of the last election was the worst one for the left of center in my life time.
So dreadful it demanded a Kevin Rudd driven ALP nothing but the fall of John Howard is acceptable for Australians who care this year.
In truth that outcome is worth a drift away from old Labor.