I have just received a glossy brochure warning me about bushfires. The government has also announced a website on which we can see the performance of different schools. These two examples got me to wondering can we as an online community come up with 10 things that any government over the past 10 years has done that has actually made a positive difference to our lives? From where I sit the bulk of government action (irrespective of which mob sits on the treasury benches) is about producing pamphlets telling us the bleeding obvious very little tangible is ever achieved. For example this league table of schools - does it mean that the government doesnot know how schools are performing? Does it mean the government wants to avoid spending funds to fix a problem and simply prefers to finger point? I would love to see a list of ten achievements by any government - no need to agree about its benefits all we need to do is demonstrate that it is an achievement. (please don't include the GST; this is about how our taxes are spent, not about how they are raised.)

Sadly not much- and it's out of lazy publicity stunts than a will to actually do something.
Although I can personally say that all the government departments below the actual government work pretty hard and DO constantly plan improvements to the system, when the proposal finds its way to the top, the party is more interested in saving the money (most likely for themselves) and printing pamphlets as they simply widely circulate belief among ignorant (potential voters) that the government are actively tackling the problem- the audience wouldn't know better.

Of course, I've also found that both parties have a record of pinning a crisis on the government in power while in opposition, and when THEY get in, may actually leaving the problem unfixed so they have something to continue to blame the other party for in future elections. Although it mostly boils down to security issues the other party would back away from being left open by the other anyway.

They do too many things, we probably could cut back a lot on government. Many overseas trips seem indulgent for example.

I can never remember my Federal local members name though never have even known the State members name or sex. They just vote along party lines and do little for the locality. Not sure why we need them. Abbott and Rudd both took an interest after the recent quest to have North Queensland separated. High unemployment and this threat prompted them into pretending we actually have political representation lol.

It was an interesting read on the Cairns Blog when a local council member said the council ran the town and the elected councillors had little say. Rob Pyne probably one of the best politicians around admits how little influence they have.

http://www.cairnsblog.net/2009/11/councillor-pyne-i-am-not-sure-what-val.html

I think a world renown politician would be in the best position to comment on the merits, or otherwise, of “Government”.

I note Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan were both in favour of “Smaller Government”, which intruded less into the private lives and choices of their electorates.

Dearest Margaret actually said

"The larger the slice taken by government, the smaller the cake available for everyone."

And

"I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society. And you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also, to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation."

And

“When all the objectives of government include the achievement of equality - other than equality before the law - that government poses a threat to liberty."

So, don’t expect good or great things from “government”,

be cynical and sceptical of the promises of politicians

To expectations: anticipate only mediocrity of performance from civil servants,

that is, after all, why they “serve”…

because civil servants lack the will and where-with-all to lead.

All governments abuse taxpayers money for their own propgaganda. However as for what governments do, we only have two choices.

Control is either handed over to the corporate sector or government (of the people) and I know I would rather a flawed government that has some accountability, at least at election time, than a completely vested interested corporatised state.

Even with a socially democratic government we are more and more corporatised. The key lies in halting the dogma and dehumanising influences of corporates on governments. Not an easy task but not insurmountable for any politician to take a strong stand. He or she may be surprised by the amount of support.

Governments are needed for all those functions where the collective interest is best served such as hospitals, schools, law enforcement, diplomacy and other obvious areas such as roads, bridges, ports etc. It is not difficult to think of others. Energy and communications we have lost to the corporate sector but there is a good argument for keeping these in public ownership.

There are many areas where government gets involved that in my view (this is an opinion site afterall) they should not. Areas that should purely be the domain of private interests - Art, Sport etc or propping up a flawed economy via corporate welfare.

There are many grants that are wasted and often while trying to solve one problem many others are created in response - the insulation grant was one such diabolical decision.

While governments concern themselves with non-essential services the most important sectors will continue to be degraded and under-funded. We have an immigration intake of approximately 130,000 per year but rarely do we hear of a new hospital being built to cope with the influx, or more police to cope with the effects of growing populations, let alone other environmental impacts.

I don't see the private sector whose focus will always be on growth and consumerism as a viable alternative for 'good' government in those important sectors.

Do governments actually do anything worthwhile? Yep, they give something to despise along with Political parties, modern art and sport.

I hate to intrude on your perennial Thatcher wet-dream, Col Rouge, but - as with all politicians - her rhetoric and her performance were worlds apart.

>>I note Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan were both in favour of “Smaller Government”<<

However clever her sound-bites may have been, here is the reality of Thatcherism.

Ignoring for the moment the large amounts of public property she sold off in order to appear "on message", she did nothing to reduce the overall size of government.

To help us on our way, I've found the URL that delivers all the relevant official Treasury statistics.

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/A/9/pfd_210808.xls

It's a spreadsheet, by the way, so will need to be downloaded.

You can of course pick any one of a number of measures, but I think you will agree that the most telling number, from the point of view of the beleaguered taxpayer, is the percentage of GDP siphoned off in the form of taxation. You'll find that at tab C1.

The figure for "Net taxes and national insurance contributions" on her ascension to PM in 1978-9 was 33.4% of GDP

And on her departure in 1999-2000, the figure was (drum roll, please....) 36.2%

So, for all her big-noting about "small government", she actually required 8.4% more from the taxpayer in order to run her version of it.

If she did in fact run a smaller government, she needed more money to do so, which is typically considered to be "Through the Looking Glass" logic.

Just another example of how spin works in the world of politics. Col Rouge. You aren't the first to be sucked in by government propaganda, and won't be the last.

It helps, of course, that you passionately want to believe it to be true.

Which is the second rule of spin-doctoring.

After the general one about telling lies so frequently, that they turn into "truth".

Dear BAYGON,

You ask - "Do Governments actually do
anything worthwhile?"

My answer: "Public Libraries -
Something the Government does right!"

Knowledge is a renewable resource...

Foxy: Public Libraries I agree a big tick. Although if you read the piece in the Weekend OZ it seems that google's attempt to digitalise all books actually puts public libraries under threat so here it may be that governments if they fall asleep at the wheel could undo at least one good thing.
Col Rouge: it is not so much about how much I pay in taxes but what is done with those taxes - those who have done the maths have discovered that conservative governments that embark on a course of small government have actually managed to increase their bureaucracies.
Here in South Australia Friday is badge day. It basically means that a particular charity is allowed to beg in the streets for that day. I always resent badge day. I figure I pay my taxes why should a particular hospital have to beg for extra facilities? In fact when you look at the charities that need our support most of them are doing things that you would think should be paid for by our taxes.
Most folk would not object to paying taxes to support things that make this a better place - better hospitals, social services, education and the like some of us would draw the line at governments subsidising businesses so that they can remain viable. The bottom line is our taxes should be used properly not frittered away on rainforest of poorly written pamphlets.

Anyhow so far we have come up with one positive (although examinator has a possible: they do give us something to gripe about)
Any advances on one lousy positive?

Happy New Year All.

Hmm! This seems to be the topic of discussion on a lot of peoples lips at the moment. I just finished reading a 61 page pdf file titled "ARTICLES OF FREEDOM The works of the Continental Congress 2009" Any one interested can find it here. http://www.cc2009.us/images/pdf/Articles-of-Freedom.12.24.2009.pdf I also spent 12 hours over the weekend reading the comments on this document on several American political forums. They're no happy Jan!

There are a lot of angry people in the world at the moment with all forms of government. The U.S.A seems to be at crossroads on this very subject again 300 years later. Should this be a concern for us? Revolution in America would not be good for Australia. But you have to hand it to them, they have a spine!

Baygon asks: "Do governments actually do anything worthwhile?"

I guess it depends on what side of the fence you sit on. If you're on the left side waiting for the government to feed you, then your answer is probably yes. On the other hand, if you're on the right side sick and tired of being taxed(stolen from) more to feed government and the bludgers on the left, then I guess the answer is no.

At present I think the government is a waist of CO2. They do nothing but make productive peoples lives harder by robbing from the productive and giving to the unproductive. The very process that allows them to siphon off more and more for themselves in every transaction and by doing so destroy the very rights we are all born with.

I think a better question would be: What type of Government would be worthwhile to the people?

Dear BAYGON,

A big hug for your backing public libraries!
Thank You!

I've just thought of another plus that may work -

"Stop repeat offenders - don't re-elect them!"

Another silly thread. Of course governments do worthwhile things, else they're voted out or overthrown.

They provide health and education services, and provide 'safety net' welfare srevices for those who need assistance. They provide police services for internal security, and defence services against external threats. They legislate - albeit belatedly - to protect the environment and to curtail the worst excesses of large corporations. They build roads and other infrastructure so that people and commodities can move around the country. I'm quite certain that we're better off with goverments - certainly of the reasonably democratic variety that we have in Australia - than we would be without them. Anarchy doesn't really appeal to me, nor I suspect to very many Australians.

That is not to say that governments necessarily do things well, nor that everything they do is necessary. However, as they say, we do tend to get the governments we deserve.

Dear BAYGON,

Just as I was getting my thoughts together
to further reply to you, CJ jumped in and
did it. He more or less said what I was
going to say. We can criticize our
Governments, however we can also vote them
out if we're not happy with their performance.

Where would many people be without our government
funded healthcare systems? The Australian Government
funds all sorts of medical services and pharmaceuticals
and gives financial assistance to public hospitals,
residential aged care facilities and home and community
care for the aged. Medicare was introduced in 1984.

The major source of funding for health research comes
from the Government and the Government provides support
for training health professionals and financial assistance
to tertiary students. Then of course there's funding
for public and private schools, universities, TAFE courses
and so on.

Where would many people be without the various pensions
and allowances?

Where would we be without our police, fire fighters,
and armed forces?

I agree with CJ - we're lucky in so many ways in this
country - and it's good to be reminded of it - every
now and again.

I can't think of anything much more stupid than paying some bloke in the tax department to take money out of my pay, then paying some bird in the health dept, to pay my doctor.

I reckon, looking at how hard the public servants I have observed work, that it must cost at least 15% extra for every transaction.

However, when you see the mess that is the EU, where the bureaucrats appear to set the agenda, I think we'd better keep our pollies.

Hasbeen very true.We are the Govt.They all talk about reducing it's size but it grows like an insidious monster enveloping our basic rights and freedoms under the ruse of protecting us.

We all suffer beaker frog syndrome,not realising what we have lost in the last 50 yrs.Be very alarmed at what is happening in the USA at the moment,since Kevin Rudd is an extremely weak leader and will make us subserviant to those evil forces that now have control.

The facism that is evolving in the USA right now will come here if we do not act.Make no mistake,this is Adolph Hitler under the guise of a trendoid Obama puppet.

See http://www.wearechange.org/ I spent a day with Luke Rudkowski it's founder in Sydney last Nov.He is passionate and is a seeker of true democracy and liberty.

Good to see CJ Morgan back on board.I hope he 's learnt some humility.

Arjay: << Make no mistake,this is Adolph Hitler under the guise of a trendoid Obama puppet. >>

I didn't go anywhere, Arjay. Unsurprising to see you're still a conspiracy nutjob :)

Humility's my middle name... well, it would be if it started with J.

The role of Government - like the Armed Forces and Police - is primarily to protect the interests (and assets) of the so-called "ruling classes" of society. The remainder of the population are a source of income during peactime and cannon-fodder during times of war.

(Non-revolutionary) Governments are not meant to change things as much as they are expected to keep this pretty much the same to maintain those interests.

The real difference between political parties and political movements, whether they are Capitalism, Communism or Fascism, is the degree of interference in the affairs of those they claim to represent.

It always fascinates me how many people think the Left fetishises government as a goal unto itself.

As Pelican notes, the current choices are inefficient, frustrating democratic governments that we can choose, or ruthlessly self-interested corporations that we can't. Democracy wins hands-down as the least-worst option.

Also, while it's fun to bash the public service, the fact is that over half of a public servant's time is spent maintaining accountability. Tony Abbott would explode with indignation if his staff found a lack of transparency in government documents, and vice versa when government changes. The PS would be a lot leaner if it could go ahead without quadruple-checking and auditing everything that comes off a desk, but who would want it working secretly?

I've particularly enjoyed watching the antics of American libertarians over the past couple of years. Before the financial crash they were screaming that government regulation of the finance industry stifles efficiency and prosperity, and after it all came tumbling down they started screaming, equally loudly, that of course government needs to keep a check on it or greed will destroy everything. Government wins again as the lesser of two weevils.

It's easy to criticise government inefficiency, but the Australian banking cartel with its charges for so much as thinking about your account is a good example of the free market paradise we'd live in without public accountability in roads, hospitals, schools and all the other institutions we enjoy.

I admit that the initial post was a calculated bit of mischief. However, a great deal of value has come from the various responses. We seem to be agreed that on the whole you need governments to manage essential services; you need a bureaucracy that is apolitical and that on the whole, given the alternatives, democracy is generally a good thing.
We can agree on all those things yet still question whether or not the political conventions that have evolved over time serve us well.
Firstly we have prime ministers behaving like presidents - yet the only people who ever voted for either Howard or Rudd were the people in their electorates.
Secondly there is the peculiar notion of a particular party having a mandate. Since preferential voting is compulsory we do not know what vote individuals would have received if people were not required to allocate their preferences - in many instances I would have liked to have the option to vote for just one person (this is particularly true for the senate.) In actual fact if we look at it dispassionately a government is formed generally with considerably less than 50% of the popular vote - it is only when preferences are taken into account that they get over 50%. So it seems that a minority of the Australian public give a particular govt a mandate - no wonder many of us feel disillusioned.

Democracy is important but if politicians put their political party ahead of the public good they are effectively undermining our confidence in democracy. For example I have no respect for the way either party handled the ETS debate - it should have been a situation where politicians had a free vote so that the legislation would have won or lost on its merits. When a controversial vote is a product of party discipline it is unlikely that many people will respect the outcome.
If we take our democracy for granted the danger is that it will be hijacked and eventually destroyed.

Dear BAYGON,

I couldn't agree with you more.

Ignore your rights and they'll go away!

Abandon False Hope … And Get Some Real Hope

Washington’s Blog
Tuesday, January 5th, 2010

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2010/01/how-can-we-abandon-false-hope-and-start.html
It is easy to be skeptical.

Virtually all of our politicians are corrupt...See this, this and this...[-see link]..

The giant banks are running the show.

The healthcare bill being rammed through Congress “is just another bailout of the financial system“, and law school professors say that it is unconstitutional.

America is on a permanent war footing, when the people (and soldiers) are sick of war.

Our civil rights have been eroded, and yet we are not being made any safer.

Top scientists, economists and environmentalists all say that cap and trade being pushed through in American and around the world is a scam which won’t significantly reduce C02 emissions, and will only help in making the financial players who crashed the economy even more wealthy.

Obama has sold us out.

So there’s nothing we can do, right?

Well, actually – as I have previously documented, things would actually change very quickly if enough people started raising a ruckus.

The ironic thing is that if all of the people who think of themselves as cynics or skeptics made noise, things would instantly change for the better. In other words, the millions upon millions of cynics/skeptics/self-described “realists” aren’t raising a ruckus against the fraud being committed by the giant banks, the corruption of our political system, or the lawlessness and imperial arrogance of our military-industrial complex because they think things can’t change.

But by staying silent, they are actually creating the conditions in which nothing can change.

If the millions of cynics woke up to the fact that they are a huge group – especially when combined with the people who are already actively working for the restoration of a democratic republic, justice, and the rule of law – they would suddenly realize that collectively we can change things in a heart beat.

Don’t believe me?

Read what Daniel Ellsberg and Dean Baker and others say.

And remember that hoping that Obama will change things is a “hopiate”. We must stop smoking the “hopium” – no good daddy or heroic leader will save us.

We have to save ourselves.

The truth is that:

“Hope has never trickled down. It has always sprung up.”
“It’s time to stop waiting for hope to be handed down, and start pushing it up, from the hoperoots.”
The truth is that real hope is an act of will. Real hope is like a muscle that needs to be developed. Real hope is an act of freedom, defiance and courage in the face of power, corruption and tyranny.

Skepticism, cynicism and “realism” is an act of fear, of cowardice, of apathy. Because if the skeptics just got off their backsides and made some noise, things would change.

So abandon false hope (as the skeptics have properly done). But start getting a backbone, take some steps that can actually change things, and start getting some real hope.

Note: I am not going to tell you what to do. But if you don’t have any ideas, start here
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/move-your-money-a-new-yea_b_406022.html