Chris C,

In some ways the Bracks made Victoria more democratic than it was under Kennett, but how could he not have, given Kennet's appalling record and Victorian's expectation of something better?

However in many in many other ways it has behaved outrageously undemocratically.

Consider:

* His promise to build the Scoresby Freeway broken and a tollway built instead. We know from "The Latham Diaries" that he refused Latham's plea to honour that promise, so Federal Labor paid the price for this in 2004, whilst by the time Bracks came up for re-election the odium of the broken promise had work off just as Latham had predicted, and the horrors of the Howard Government that Bracks had helped get re-elected paradoxically drove Victorian voters back into the arms of Bracks. (see http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=884#15571)

* His promise to build a railway line to the (Avalon(?)) Airport broken. Now it often costs more to get to the airport by taxi than the flight itself does.

* His giving away of Royal Park to the Singapore company Australand so that they could build housing under the guise of building an athlete's village for the 2006 Commonwealth Games.

* His agreement to participate in the Privatisation of the Snowy Rive scheme.

* His insistence on funding infrastructure projects as Public Private Partnerships instead of raising loans which would be far cheaper. They were so advantageous to the private sector that even the Queensland Government invested in Victorian PPP's.

* His encouragement of poupalation growth without any consultation with the Victorian public (see "Complaints about Melbourne 2030: record of submission to Planning Minister 16-8-07" at http://candobetter.org/node/149) when there is not enough water for existing Victorians.

James Sinnamon (author)

Chris C I am glad I do not live in Victoria - your examples do not impress. Many of them were underway when Kennett left office but the ALP claimed them for their own. Same here in South Australia - ALP is riding on the reputation of the previous government, especially in economic management.
As Daggett rightly points out they have done plenty wrong...and let's not forget that it is Victoria which is holding the rest of the country to ransome over the River Murray. (Yes, funnily enough Victorians do not own the river...it is a national asset that needs to be cared for by all Australians not just those who live outside the Victorian border.)

Define just? Is there an objective definition? Ask a dozen people...
Redistibute the wealth, perhaps?(Sowidawity, bruvvers!) And then watch it all go back into the hands of the people you redistibuted it from.(Howls of derisive laughter, Bruce!).
Why should Labor or Liberal parties rule the roost at all? If you take time to examine the rules governing the electoral process you'll notice that YOUR local representative must be just that, a local person who is nominated, supported and voted for by their local constituency, NOT some party nominated individual. The major parties maintain their grip on government and govern, in effect, illegally due to population ignorance or, more likely, apathy.
If the author advocates "grass roots" change, perhaps he should abandon his pro ALP stance and teach people "how to". Bring about real government "by and for".

IT is useful to consider what others have said about fairness and a “just” society

Quote:

“On one thing, nature and nurture agree: we are all different. If this is unjust, then life is unjust. But, though one hears this expression - usually in the form of the complaint that 'life is unfair' - it really means nothing. In the same vein, someone once said to Voltaire, 'Life is hard.' To which is replied: 'Compared with what?'”

"When all the objectives of government include the achievement of equality - other than equality before the law - that government poses a threat to liberty."

“Left-wing zealots have often been prepared to ride roughshod over due process and basic considerations of fairness when they think they can get away with it. For them the ends always seems to justify the means. That is precisely how their predecessors came to create the gulag."

But my favourite remains

“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.”

The source – Margaret Thatcher. Someone who knew that the price for the pursuit of socialists “just” ended up as equal shares in nothing.

What a fascinating series of posts! Let's see. "market liberalisation is inexorable..." "...there was also hope during the hawke/keating years..." Well you can all read.

The quote from arch bitch Thatcher is quite true. One should remember however that the cause of Socialism (and all its attendant evils,[see M. Hirsch. Democracy v Socialism he was a Victorian.])today presented as "Labor" is and are the horrifying conditions that "capitalism" expects people to work and live under. There is another way. But, typically, this blog is full of words and innuendo and quotes but there is no political substance - no proposals even as to what constitutes a "just society."

A just society must start with one thing: The land belongs to all men, the rent is the benefit, it should be collected by society.

"A just society" is too hard to define as everyone is so different.

However, I think Mark Latham had the right operating paradigm for the current time when he talked about civilising capital markets. In other words, make our economic systems work for the benefit of people rather than the other way around.

Of course, there are as many perspectives to achieving this as there are people.