"......- put more ready cash in the “pockets of ordinary Australians” than ever before, with record high real wages and household incomes;

- generated unprecedented household wealth;....." (Quote: Rhian)

Here we go again. This is a classic Howard Regime mantra.

...and it is absolute rubbish!

Any party that is governed by ideology is going to bad for society in the long run. Ideologies almost by definition are inflexible, unwilling to accept that the human interactions are infinitely complex, and that it's rarely the case that one simple action (such as lowering taxes) can be shown to increase or decrease "fairness", perceived or otherwise.
The ideologies of extreme laissez-faire capitalism, and of extreme state-control have both been tried (the former in late 19th century America, the latter in various communist regimes) and found wanting.
In between the two are a range of options as to how much and what sort of government involvement in otherwise private economic acitivities can exist. Examining a range of economies from low levels of involvement (Hong Kong, Singapore) to high levels (Norway, Sweden), it's not particular obvious that either produces a "better" overall result (either in directly measureable and quantifiable terms, such as GDP per capita, employment figures, life expectancy etc.) or more subjective results ("happiness" surveys etc.). Ultimately, democracy is the best method to determine what level of government involvement is best - if the majority of Swedish and Norwegian voters are happy to have 50% of their income taken in taxes and redistributed via extensive government involvement in welfare, health, industry etc., then that's entirely their perogative (and to some extent, recent elections have shown a drift back towards lower taxes and less government involvement, but it's still very much "big government" compared to Australia). On the other hand, I believe the next election will demonstrate that Australians in general do want government policies to protect them against abuses of power by employers, and to ensure the paying of reasonable wages is not entirely left up to unrestricted market forces - in other words, they are not happy with the state of the country as it has been under Howard, and will vote accordingly (FWIW, I personally have no strong opinion about WorkChoices - my biggest concern is that it seems to have increased red-tape for many businesses)

Daggett, I did not know that the ALP was the oldest surviving political party in the world. How incredible. What does that mean, I wonder?

Reading your article and then the posts I am struck by the difficulty people seem to have in relating to the idea of a grass-roots movement. I note that your website, www.candobetter.org seems to be trying to form such a movement and shows activity from some very diverse groups. Congratulations are due because I do not believe there is another site like yours and it seems to me that without a grass roots movement of people with the confidence to insist on retaining their quality of life instead of selling it off cheap for baubles as in "putting more ready cash in the pockets of ordinary Australians" we are doomed to go from bad to worse.

There is a great divide of comprehension between the bauble-o-philes and the quality-of-life-o-philes who care about freedom and food and water. The baublelovers seem just regurgitate what they are fed by the political parties and the mainstream press and the quality-lovers find it hard to stand up against that onslaught. But they must. Those of us who realise that without free access to necessities and amenities we are doomed to suffer as soon as government loses the small control it still has over the resource barons (banks, property developer land-banks, water traders, agribusinesses etc) have to strengthen our identification of these threats and develop more solidarity in our defense. That does mean getting rid of Howard, and, after that, getting rid of the bad guys in the ALP who think and act like Howard. And getting rid of those high priests of babble and bauble, the economist mouthpieces for the trickle down fairy-tale that promotes the lie that we should trust in thieves and that the rich are rich because they deserve to be and the poor are poor because they deserve that.

Kanga,

I fully agree with your sentiments, but when you say the quality-of-life people need to "develop more solidarity in our defense", how on earth can you possibly defend yourself if the Government itself only has tenuous, and ever-diminishing, control over the big companies? What magical powers do you have that no one else has exhibited to date? I hope I'm wrong but I can't see how you and a few of your mates are going to be able to make a difference.

Yendis” The quote from arch bitch Thatcher is quite true”

Ah and Margaret would reply “I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.”

As for “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.”

If you think a government landlord is any different to a private landlord, you are sorely mistaken.

The real issue with such a proposition is, however, by investing all land and I assume productive assets in the representative of society, I guess, the state, you are infact creating stagnation and removing competition (state or government monopolies are no different and as manipulative as privately owned monopolies).

Worse than that, you are denying every private individual the right to aspire to being a landlord and denying those who would seek to opt out of the state tenancy agreements the opportunity to do so.

RobP "make our economic systems work for the benefit of people rather than the other way around.”

They do. The ownership of assets is ultimately, through shares or superannuation, owned by people. That those who err to prudence, rather than profligacy tend to benefit more is just a matter of individual perspective as you commented re – “there are as many perspectives to achieving this as there are people”.

I am politically, libertarian. I follow the values of my perspective and leave you to follow yours. It is socialism which would seek to force us to adopt the same “perspective”

Sarnian “Celebrate your ignorance, vote for Howard".

Ah yes, I have one on my car too “prove your stupidity, vote labor”

At least with the liberals, we are not mortgaging our childrens future with massive public debt which Hawke/Keating and every other socialist government has racked up.

Col Rouge: "Ah yes, I have one on my car too 'prove your stupidity, vote labor' "

Would that be the Bentley? I'd like to see that!