I approve of the actions that the author advises the Labor government to take. Nevertheless I don't think they should take them. As the author points out Labor in its campaign to get elected did not promise the agenda the author and I wish they would implement. I think if the Labor government wants that agenda they should call for another election and offer that agenda to the Australian public. If the public approves then they have a mandate to implement that agenda.

That would not only secure public approval but also would set a precedent for honesty in campaigning.

Ideally you have a point... Political parties need to run on platforms - and this goes to the heart of representative democracy... But what about when events unfold in such an unpredicted, chaotic and damaging fashion - that action is needed desperately and immediately? I think the currect circumstances are such as this...

Unfortunately, Aus politics are dominated by shallow, poll-driven opportunism. The ALP - in this - postures as to 'hold the centre' - but it is a RELATIVE centre that it does not control... And nor does it attempt to CONTEST the meaning of the RELATIVE centre in a meaningful way...

It's for this reason that I think we need a more overtly social democratic/liberal democratic socialist party - to push the boundaries of debate...To say things the timid souls in the ALP will not...And to exert leverage on any government such as to secure progressive compromise...

That said - in the meantime - those in the 'line of fire' re: the global recession cannot just 'sit back and take it'... Opportunities for civil disobedience go to the core of liberal principles... And those principles are as important as democratic principles...

Tristan Ewins wrote:

That said - in the meantime - those in the 'line of fire' re: the global recession cannot just 'sit back and take it'... Opportunities for civil disobedience go to the core of liberal principles... And those principles are as important as democratic principles...

Dear Tristan,

Civil disobedience is important. We have an obligation to violate an unjust law by refusing to obey it. Thoreau, Gandhi and others acted on that principle. However, it is not civil disobedience when a government does not adhere to the platform on which it was elected.

Dear David;

You're right that civil disobedience is not such as a government going beyond its mandate...

For my part, I was going on a bit of a tangent...

But the point is that individual social and liberal rights can can 'trump' even a democratic mandate...

Democracy is valuable - especially when grounded in a constitution enshrining liberal and social rights...

In ways, though, liberal democracies are imperfect compromises... Liberal and social rights are thrown 'into the mix'...And then governments must always respond to unforeseen circumstances - that go beyond mandate...

Here - it is right for there to be such flexibility - that government may change direction under pressure from the mobilised citizenry - or in reponse to contingencies...

The pension debate is a good example - even though you'll see I'm a bit cynical about some being left out - and opportunism in both parties...

I suppose that it is very hard for todays voters to realise that after three generations of rising living standards they will have to endure a marked decline. The sooner the Federal government starts doing this, the better the chance we can escape having our enormous foreign debt call in. Anyone looking at Iceland, Argentina or Pakistan will see that having it called in is not a lot of fun for anyone.

The forthcoming depression will also be a great time to start to wean Australia off the motor car. Remember, what makes this slump different is that any recovery will be aborted by peak oil (and peak food).

The policies that the NSW and Federal governments should adopt are:

1. Legislate for the Reserve Bank to set interest rates at 5% above inflation.

2. Increase the tax on petrol and diesel to european levels.

3. Have the NSW government treble train and bus fares, and treble electricity charges.

4. Have the NSW government increase substantially the land tax on parking places around Sydney, to the level that it costs $100 per day to park in the city. This would make driving into the city the preserve of the very rich.

5. Have the Federal government introduce two levels of departure tax for people going overseas; $5,000 for ordinary departures, and $200 if visiting family or friends. (If you are visiting family or friends, you obviously won't need any foreign exchange, otherwise it will cost you $5,000).

6. Use the revenue from the above policies to upgrade infrastructure from current earnings, and without any new borrowing.

Obviously, I consider the current splurge of $10 billion a useless waste of money which will just serve to maintain the current illusory living standard a little longer. I am sure there has been pressure from business to help move the christmas stocks they have already bought, so that a series of mysterious warehouse fires in January can be avoided.

Obviously, again, I am not standing for election, as nothing like this will be done.

I don't necessarily disagree with all the measures you are suggesting plersedus but I think that for any government to try to implement them would amount to political suicide.

I would certainly like to see us move away from the current economic model which is creating ever more of it's own problems. We are at the stage where most of the goods and services we purchase are mostly superfluous to any real need. If I divided up all the posessions in my house into categories (eg toys, kitchen implements etc etc) and then threw out half of them, I bet that in most categories we would scarcely even notice the missing ones. There would be no impact whatsoever on quality of life.

The problem is that while the goods themselves may be superfluous, the production, distribution and retail of them is far from trivial. Much employment relies on the production and consumption of them. If we all cut our spending by 50%, the effects could be quite serious.

This has been further exacerbated by a never-ending rise in consumer credit. A higher and higher level of credit has been necessary to finance ever higher consumption levels. Many livelyhoods, both here and in the developing world have evolved to rely on people in rich nations spending significantly more than they earn each month on an ongoing basis. We need to at least reduce our dependence on this model.

Government taking a more active role in the economy could provide jobs by facilitating the creation and maintainence of things of vastly greater long-term value than the endless stream of plasma screens and nintendo wii's and 10 billion other kinds of widgets that production is currently geared toward.

Dear Tristan,

National leaders have been elected on a platform and then have departed from it with good results. Two examples are Roosevelt promising to continue the Hoover fiscal policies and then instituting the New Deal and de Gaulle getting elected with the support of the African colons and then evacuating Algeria. However, politics is the art of the possible. If you are going to depart from your mandate you better be able to get re-elected to continue the departure.

Turnbull is the strong leader that Nelson wasn’t. I think that if Rudd tried to promote a more overtly social democratic/liberal democratic socialist party he would be out at the next election or before, and Turnbull would be Howard-lite.

Roosevelt and de Gaulle could get away with it for two reasons. They were both elected as president with fixed terms of 4 years and 7 years respectively and were both overpowering personalities. In a parliamentary system not only does the prime minister not have a fixed term, but also parliamentarians from his own party can turf him out as Bob Hawke found out.

Rudd wrote excellent essays on Dietrich Bonhoeffer. However, I think he is a better essay writer than prime minister. I don’t think he has either the political skills or the charisma to follow the examples of Roosevelt and de Gaulle.

Dear plerdsus,

Your suggestions are at cross-purposes. If you want to wean Australia off the motorcar you subsidise train and bus fares so mass transit is cheaper. To raise them is hitting the poor and those who would like to use their cars less.

I also agree with all your ideas Tristan - for social justice and long term reform for pensioners and other low income groups.

However, we have to give the voters some credit. While governments are elected on mandates, events like a financial crisis changes the landscape in major ways.

Given the current economic situation, many voters will be more concerned about a 'looming' recession than whether all schools receive the benefits of the Education Revolution or that the Infrastructure Fund is raided to some extent. Many schools have already received their computers, these policies cannot be implemented in one swoop in any case. These election promises are still deliverable but perhaps not within the original timeframe.

I am not sure we need another election at this difficult time although I take david f's point about honesty in campaigning.

As a society we have become greedy and materialistic. Those who have lived off the exploitation of others can certainly live less so that others can live more. But as for fiscal restraint, pensioners and other low income groups have carried the burden for far too long.

Tristan

I think that Lenin's description of the ALP as a bourgeois workers' party is apt, and explains the tensions within the Party and its pro-capitalist actions when in power.

Thus, as you mention, the fact that Rudd is keeping 95% of Workchoices, is explicable in terms of its bourgeois orientation and philosophy and actions.

Rudd is not going to launch a full blown Keynesian revolution, but even if he did it wouldn't work.

The new deal didn't end the depression. World war II did.

While I share your desire for a more just and socially equitable society, Rudd will not deliver on that.

And I think we need to go deeper than just "extreme" capitalism, whatever that is, to understand the crisis. The stagnant rate of profit helps in that understanding. And that of course leads to questions about why is the profit rate low in many developed countries? This seems to me to lead to Marx's analysis of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall.

So unless there is the wholesale destruction of capital, and massive attacks on workers' living standards, and innovation that leads to lower costs of necessities for workers, then the slide will be on-going I believe.

Neither Keynesianism or neo-liberalism per se do that, unless the bosses use them as ideological cover to massively attack workers or capital is destroyed (eg war, value etc).

Rudd will be part of that attack on workers and their living standards.

The real issue is how to stop Rudd and the bourgeois bent of the ALP. To me that means more than pathetic ACTU Your Rights at work television ads. It means workers mobilising to defend their interest against the bosses (and the bosses' Government)

Passy - I think that you're right insofar as the falling rate of profit leads into an ever-greater logic of exploitation... In a way, though, it is fortunate for us - that even in this context, technological improvements have seen a betterment of material living standards for most of us...

The question, though, is: what can replace this system with its logic of exploitation?

One answer is to retain a market, including shareholders - but for collective share in enterprise to be taken as compensation for the reduced wage share of the economy...

The most important question, though, is: can material living standards be maintained - or improved?

The benefit of new technology remains... Our increased productivity and collective wealth means we have the capacity to provide for the needs of the poor, the vulnerable, the unemployed - even in the context of a global recession - without forsaking as much in relative terms, say, as would have been necessary during the Depression...

You're right, though, that WWII and the arms economy that followed - were core in overcoming the Depression's legacy...

Today we need to balance the need to allow some liberty in the function of markets - but not to allow destructive and destabilising profiteering, speculation etc...

Most importantly, we need to focus on the 'real' economy - including providing for real needs in health, education, aged care, communications, transport, parks and gardens, public space, participatory media - and so the list goes on...

What's important is that we have an economy that promotes human need first - and for this we really need to put the ghost of neo-liberalism to rest... The market alone is not enough. We need the right mix of planning, economic democracy, and responsive markets...