Apart from DEMOS whom I'm not entirely sure about, I would classify all the posters who have replied so far as generally "left-wing" inclined, based on what I've read of their posting history.

Dickie, re 5, 6, & 10:

5. Economic growth is worthwhile - but only as long as it means that quality of life (not just material standard of living) is improving for everyone. The main benefit I see to the increase of material wealth is that it gives us the capacity to better protect ourselves against natural disasters, including eventually far-out ones like asteroid strikes. It's also necessary if we want to follow ambitions such as space colonisation. But note that these require substantial "collective" wealth - not individual wealth.

6. My position is to trust the scientists when they warn of particular threats - probability-wise they are the most likely to have it right. In that sense, I'm not worried about technologies such as nuclear power or GM crops - only the risk of them ending up in the wrong hands, but that's true of many technologies. Scientists overwhelming agree that species extinction, soil degradation, and global warming are real problems, and it would seem foolish, having not devoted my life to studying such phenomenon, to claim I know better. Where scientists aren't so much help is recommending solutions, which requires a broader expertise. There will always be cases where a particular activity causes real harm, but preventing it (especially when you can only realistically prevent it in your own backyard) causes more harm.

10. Intervention may go wrong on occasions (in ways that make everyone worse off), but without government regulation and occasional intervention, I don't believe large-scale markets could function well for very long: market failures are very real, and in many cases the consequences can be literally fatal. Unless you're opting for anarcho-capitalism, governments will always be involved in markets one way or another (through taxes, etc.), so it's critical that government strives to act as responsibility as possible - the solution to bad government is good government, not necessarily "less government".

CJ, I'm interested in how you feel about the other points. I've already clarified my views on 5 & 10 above, so here's my "qualifications" on points 3, 4 & 8:

3. I avoided the term "free market". Markets can never be truly "free", as per my points on #10. above.
Further, the big danger with market economies is that they have the capacity to reward behaviour that may be profitable in the short-term to a few, but are long-term damaging to the majority. The point of regulation should be to keep this effect to a minimum.

4. Most people who become rich do so by creating wealth, hence "growing the pie", making more available for everybody. Even in cases where people become rich by creating very little wealth themselves (e.g. speculators), they are unlikely
to be having much effect on the poorest, who don't generally buy what speculators sell. (One counter-example: pokies operators!)
However while it's not a *necessary* outcome of the "rich getting richer", the poor very well may be getting poorer, even if only relatively poorer. Increasing relative poverty is a problem, as it can lead to social unrest, and hinders the opportunities available to the poorest to get ahead.

8. An overly generous welfare state is one that encourages individuals to depend on it, and is clearly not desirable. However this is far preferable to an insufficiently funded or overly restrictive welfare system that punishes those genuinely in need of help far more than those determined to leach off others. By all accounts, Australia's welfare system has turned into the latter in recent years.

All of those points are valid to anyone with a sense of integrity. I think you mean ALP when you say new Labor. The real Labor Party & it's noble doctrine was assigned to the history books in the early 70's.
ALP- acronym -Academics, Leeches, Preposterous

Wizofus, you’re right to admit that your statements, in their bare form, don’t make you sound very ‘Leftist’ (sic) at all because they need to be carefully qualified. Moreover, at least three of your beliefs (6, 9,10 and probably 3) are mere factual statements and their opposites are also true - neither ‘leftists’ nor ‘rightists’ would disagree.

• 1: e.g. a rape victim too intimidated to report? a person who agrees to euthanasia? a fraudster rewarded for achievement?
• 2: ‘equality of opportunity’ and ‘equality of outcome’ require definition – as do ‘strived for’; and what if you left out ‘for its own sake’?
• 3: antithesis is just as supportable, depending on context
• 4: plain wrong in relativities – infinite wealth is a myth
• 5: motherhood - unless you say for whom and why
• 6: antithesis is just as supportable
• 7: context is critical
• 8: define ‘overly’, ‘generous’ and ‘desirable’
• 9: antithesis is just as supportable
• 10: antithesis is just as supportable.

However, I agree with your introductory comment that ‘Those on the political Right often seem to have curious opinions about what the "Left" believes’.

Perhaps you have bent too far in the direction of ordinariness to illustrate your ‘Leftist’ beliefs in order to make a perfectly valid point that many politically reactionary and conservative OLO posters go off half-cocked when using the label ‘Leftist’.

Maybe it really is time to call a halt to the specious use of ‘left-right labels? The idea that there is a consistent continuum of political and social beliefs on change and order in society might have been useful once. I think such a continuum now clouds the issues and its use just encourages people to be intellectually lazy and sometimes dishonest – they label (libel) people and fail to address the content of the argument.

I am a Leftie and proud to say that. It took me 15 years of being a member of the ALP before I joined a faction. The reason I chose the Left was that I observed the bloody minded mentality of the Right running roughshod over party members with their win at all costs way. A fair go for all including members of the minority including females of the party. Females are being left behind in this party, perhaps WWW party may get a better run next election! (What Women Want party)
People of integrity are being ignored.

By the way, one controversial point I'll throw in to the debate - the more I read, the more I'm convinced that by far and away the most terrible and tragic case of government intervention into market forces gone wrong is the criminalisation of recreational drugs. A classic of case of where, yes, accepted, many drugs have the capability of significant harm, and there are social costs incurred in allowing their widespread use, but where the harm caused by banning them is far far worse. Yet where are the economic conservatives who preach the virtues of the free market in this debate?

Oh, and individual - I don't consider the Labor party particularly left-wing at all. While Rudd is a vast improvement over Howard, any one looking for a genuinely progressive government committed to fighting aspects of the status quo that entrench inequity and injustice is not going to find much to rejoice in with the ALP.