Very well said and I'd agree with pretty much everything here, though I suspect that any commentary supporting greater government intervention will result in certain quarters branding it 'socialist' or some other extreme nonsense.

Once upon a time it tended to be those arguing for greater government involvement in the economy who were the extremists, but it seems to me that the failures of the aforementioned protectionist policies of the 30s, combined with the failures of socialism and communism abroad have resulted in such a vehement rejection of anything that links the government with the economy.
Thus, those who take extremist free market stances are free to speak their piece, but those who take a moderate, even light stance that government intervention may be required in some instances, tend to be branded as socialists. I tend to think this isn't great for our economy, nor what passes for economic dialogue, which is inevitably skewed to the far right.

(Just to make it clear, I'll support free market policies, sure, but there is a line to be drawn and I don't think it's in the distance at the far right - I think we're straddling it and perhaps we've passed beyond what's optimal).

I agree vehemently with Fitzgibbon on abolishing the states - while as a general rule I don't like centralisation, it's patently obvious we're overgoverned, and I don't think further centralisation would be inevitable if we expanded the role of local government.