Steel,

You say >> “The right is no more individualistic as the left. They are one and the same, but with different emphasis.”

Really? Right and left are the same. What’s the difference in emphasis?

You really haven’t got a clue have you?

In modern Western countries, the political spectrum usually is described along left- right lines. This traditional political spectrum is defined along an axis with Conservatism ("the right") on one end, and Socialism ("the left") on the other. In Europe, the term Liberalism term refers to a wide range of center-right to left-of-center politics.) http://www.masterliness.com/a/Left.Right.politics.htm

In this country the right/left divide is fairly clear and is well understood by most intelligent people. The left believes in more economic interventionism (obviously this is on a sliding scale), the right believes in varying levels of economic liberalism. The left tends to believe in “equality of outcome”, the right in “equality of opportunity”. The left tend to believe that living standards can best be improved by direct economic support to the poor; the right, by job creation through greater economic activity.

Right wing liberal economic policies emphasize lower taxes, but also less gov’t spending, allowing workers to keep more of the money they earn and allowing them to make their own decisions on what is best for them. The left generally support higher taxes and therefore greater gov’t spending believing the gov’t is a better vehicle for delivering the services and support that people need.

This isn’t generally contentious, although Steel always seems to struggle. Certainly gov’ts who have supposedly been right wing have run very high spending programs in recent times, particularly Howard. This does not change the definition of right-left. It merely means the gov’t straddles that divide.

You say >> “Neoconservatives and the religious rule the right”

What absolute bollocks. Even if you had the sense to define you terms you’d be way off the mark. The vast majority of those to the right of the political spectrum are divided into traditionalists or free market liberals. The influence of religion on Australian politics has been almost NON-EXISTENT

TBC

I can't name a single media organisation in this country that's as persistently and critically scrutinised for bias as much as the ABC.

I recall a Radio National programme several years ago (Friday Nights, 9pm?) called "The Continuing Crisis" that was supposed to be a "right-wing Philip Adams" concept. It was launched as a response to alleged bias by then board-member Michael Kroger (another unbiased appointee).

Anybody listen to it? Anybody even remember it? I didn't think so.

I do recall however, that both Neville Wran and Bob Hawke loathed the ABC for their "bias" - or was it just "criticism"?

I suppose it depends on your interpretation or your willingless to accept a broader view.

Hmmm! Pardon me for being out of line here, but it seems to me that we are missing the point over Left/Right here. The issue I have is this - every time ANY stamp of government comes in, it somehow automatically goes to the Right. By this I mean that no matter how well-principled and honourable the Guv may be prior to being elected - he/she/it is inevitably drawn by the lure of power. What this means is that, essentially, all governments become Right once in power, since they all believe in the divine right of government* to make and break any legislation they wish regardless of the wishes and sometimes best interests of the people (pardon me for becoming one of those 'communists' here - if I said this in the US I would be applauded by the Democrats) - this applies across the political spectrum.
What I see as missing in our government, now matter who it is drawn from, is a genuine, down-to-earth interest in the welfare of its own electorate.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
*(The English Civil War was fought over the Divine Right of Kings - the US War of Independence was fought over the Divine Right of an external power - the Russian Civil War (they tend to be somewhat tardy over there) was (again) fought over the Divine Right of Kings - I often pose the question of whether the NEXT Civil War is to be fought over the Divine Right of Government).

RPG,
I’m sorry I offended you. That was not my intention. Nor was I intending to pass judgement on your opinion. I was of the understanding that this was a discussion site. I would have thought that included accuracy in facts and some measure of objectivity.
I was simply trying to correct the errors of fact in your piece and offer a little objectivity. As for changing your opinion I wouldn’t dare. Of course it’s YOUR OPINION and you’re entitled to it. Yes I read the article.
I’ll TRY to remember in future that your opinion supersedes the facts and not comment.

PAUL L
I distrust the common usage of the left/right labels because;
1. They seem to mean different things to different people.
2. And imply, as some would have it, there are two opinions ‘theirs and the wrong one’ or you’re an idiot, imbecile, pompous twit etc.
3. That there only two valid perspectives, left or right.
4. That these views are mutually exclusive on all issues.

I hold views that run from left of centre to right of centre it depends on the issue. I would contend that this mixture of perspectives is true of most people.

Yet politics tends to squabble over this middle ground. The public’s (and my) distrust of the two view scenario is evidenced by their deliberate and constant vote for a hung Senate to ensure no extremes from either party.

As I have consistently said ‘neither political side have sole franchise to the best ideas’ hence I don’t automatically support either. Instead I examine issues/views on their merits and then decide (hopefully) on OBJECTIVE grounds.

Have to agree with the comments that most Australians have varied opinions on different issues, and that Australia forunately lacks influence from extreme left and right views, although individuals such as Bolt and Pilger do make important contributions that help vitalise any liberal democracy.

Key focus of my opinion piece is indeed the economic debate over the balance between govt intervention and market forces.

One can be of the centre-left and centre-right and be able to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of each side.

My criticism, including of Kelly who promotes a centre-right perspective, is that he makes too much of statistics that show Australia's improved per capita GDP as he fails to understand how such statistics mask the reality that most Western societies are struggling.

I am indeed a supporter of liberalism and capitalism, but such support should never downplay the immense problems ahead. While any policy alternative may be hard to find, thus reflecting the ongoing difficulty of balancing national and international considerations in a world of competing nations, intellectual laziness about the consequences of such trends can never be excused.

As for Albrechtsen, one response was that she was hardly representative of an articulate centre-right perspective when compared to Kelly, yet she is a member of Aust's Foreign Council. Hence, we should all take her comments seriously and expose her strengths and weaknesses, whatever one's personal view.

Re all this left equals state intervention, right equals state restraint stuff, Marx saw the state as an instrument of class rule. For him the abolition of class rule would lead to the withering away of the state.

And the US leaders (all, as far as I can tell, right wingers) not only use the power of the US state to further the economic power of US companies around the globe, but also, as US economic power declines over time they strengthen the state to bolster their position in the world.