Individual may I get in here? my loyalty to Labor is strong, some who have seen my posts in other forums know it is stretched sometimes.
I was a youthful activist in the 1970,s for my party.
Ready to fight in 1975 That day is still in my mind.
Looking back my party let me down!
Come Curr, sorry Kerr's sell out we could not muster enough support to even go close in the election.
Hawke did a great job in returning us to power so soon after a defeat we earned by some truly stupid actions.
Our 23 year stay in the wilderness came via our right the DLP we all helped!
In fighting seemed more important than victory.
If Julia Gillard in her former left role had lead us into this elect do not dream, we would be still in opposition for a total exceeding that 23 years.
My party did not sell out!
It did what conservatives must now do, it evolved.
It followed the only power that makes governments voters.
And just for a start Kevin Rudd will by the time he leaves office have reinvented us, rebuild our brand name, and destroyed the view we are unable to be trusted.
Remember basic maths numbers not dreams control Parliament.
I revel in 2007 a victory only mainstream Labor and like it or not the trade union movement could deliver.
Along with help from a stale government and a host of former Liberal voters.
New Labor is better than no Labor.

FrankGol,

1. Not sure what your point is here? Though agreed I should have added "honest achievement".
2. The "for its own sake" is critical, because the reality is that equality of opportunity is to large degree dependent on a certain amount of equality of outcome: vast disparities in wealth preclude a fair society where everybody is capable of achieving their full potential.
3. The anti-thesis is that market forces are not capable of innovation/creativity/wealth-creation, how is that supportable? Anyway, see previous reply to CJ on #3.
4. Again see #4, but it's not technically true that the rich can't become richer without the poorer becoming relatively poorer. But it does require that the richer you become, the harder is it to become richer still, whereas the poorer you are, the easier it is to become richer - arguably the opposite is true in most capitalist societies.
6. True, but just addressing the suspicions on the Right that most environmental causes are somehow conspiracies of the Left.
7. I don't think this needs context - "offense" alone is not sufficient justification for curtailing free speech. "Hate speech" that intentionally incites discrimination and violence against minorities is quite a different matter.
8. See above reply to CJ.
9. Exactly. Just because governments are inefficient or make bad decisions does not necessarily mean private enterprise will do any better.
10. See above reply to Dickie.

And of course the Left-Right divide is a gross simplification, but it's obviously not completely useless. I deliberately avoided getting into purely social issues (gay marriage, euthanasia etc.) because there are a lot of people who fit the Left-Right split on economic issues but not on social issues (itself a blurry divide - Friedman argued against criminalisation of drugs largely on an economics basis, even calling it "socialism").
On the social side, I'm about as a left-wing/libertarian as you can get (I don't even see why we should need laws banning polygamy, for instance).

wizofus,

1. Life does not always amount to all that we are capable of or want. People impose on us – legally and illegally, morally and immorally.

2. Equality of opportunity is vacuous without measures of equality of outcomes – for groups of equal merit (e.g. women/men, black/white, ability). ‘For its own sake’ could apply to equality of opportunity too: why differentiate?

3. Market forces are not invariably good and can be a force for bad e.g. Australian workers sacked because Korean workers can be paid less.

4. You are out-of-touch with the realities of wealth and poverty which are reflexive constructs. People are only rich because others are poor. The more wealthy people there are, the more poor people there have to be, by definition. This applies at individual and nation-state levels. The ‘trickle-down effect’ is rich people’s propaganda.

5. Define ‘worthwhile’.

6. This remains a statement of fact not a belief of either ‘left’ or ‘right’.

7. You just gave a context – ‘"Hate speech" that intentionally incites discrimination and violence against minorities is quite a different matter.’ Is it OK to call all disabled or all Indigenous ‘dole bludgers’? Or all Muslims ‘terrorists’?

8. This is better than your original which carried emotionally and politically loaded terms.

9. You’re drawing a false dichotomy – on an empirically testable matter. Governments make good and bad decisions and are efficient and inefficient – exactly like private enterprise.

10. You’re right - the solution to bad government is good government, not necessarily "less government" - although ‘better’ government rather than ‘good’ government might be more realistic.

You say that you ‘deliberately avoided getting into purely social issues (gay marriage, euthanasia etc.)’. I think you almost concede that this distinction between ‘purely social issues’ and ‘economic issues’ is problematic. Even more so would be the distinction between ‘social’ and ‘political’ issues. Is polygamy merely a ‘social’, and not a ‘political’ or ‘economic’ issue?

You agree that ‘the Left-Right divide is a gross simplification, but it's obviously not completely useless.’ Obviously? How so? You don’t make the case and I challenged it.

Frank Gol may I come in here?and maybe the other poster who holds my faction guilty of winning too much.
Yes dreadful as it sounds I am from center unity, the NSW right of the ALP.
I love and admire the passion of the left, it once was my home yes I was a committed lefty, little fat communist as a child in fact.
My sin?
look back to an earlier post here, I said sometimes my love of my party is stretched.
Those times are when we plan not to win elections, divide ourselves with policy's that keep us in opposition.
I often stand with the left if I believe they are right.
And against if I think they are wrong.
Do not convict me for being in the side that wins more often.

We do so because most in our party agree with us, no sin to want to work from government not cry in opposition.
50 years from now those who hold the seats we sit in today hopefully will still understand only in government can the left of center make an impact.
Senator Faulkner a very commented lefty is in my view one of the Parliaments top 5 on our side so maybe the right are not always wrong.

Good Afternoon Everyone and A Happy New Year!

Am I Left or Right? It varies ... Depending on the circumstances ...
But, I am pro-fairness, and social justice, so I suppose that would make me more - Left?

Anyway, I basically agree with 1)Except to want to be rewarded for your achievments implies greed. The achievement should be its own reward.

2) Agree - with reservations. 3) Agree- again with reservations.
4) Don't agree - if the rich are getting richer - it usually means the poor aren't doing so well.
5) Agree. 6) Agree. 7) Freedom of Speech is guaranteed in our society.
However - I hesitate about whether it shouldn't be curtailed if its going to cause problems. I would not want to see the use of profanity against certain groups that might incite violence.
8) Agree - It should be proportional to the need.
9) Agree - Governments are run by people, people aren't perfect - mistakes will occur.
10) Certain situations require Government intervention...

Room for a righty in here? Not much to quibble about in this list. Most Lib. voters I know would compose much the same list.

My only disagreement is with #5. Economic growth is not just worthwhile, but is imperative. The solutions to the coming energy problems, sufficient welfare, equality of opportunity, maintenance of and access to the common wealth hinge on sustained economic development and growth.

economy