Yabby
"... that is for good reasons, ie because most Australians are
clearly quite content with the middle ground."

That is true which is why we see a convergence to the middle particularly with the smoothing of old class politics and improvements in the pay of tradesmen etc.

However the 'middle ground' is shifting further to the Right away from any balancing of what governments can/should do and what the market supplies as in Shadow Minister's assessment above. Shadow Minister is incorrect to assume that the ALP agenda has not shifted to the Right which is reflected in privatisation policy and the neo-liberal agenda.

As a middle grounder with a slight Left leaning there is a danger of moving further to the anarchy with this heightened dependence and faith in pure market politics.

There are many ways government can be reduced (ie. waste) without losing sight of the positives of public ownership for essential infrastructure nor the universal benefits of public health, education and law enforcement and welfare. It is clear from the behaviours of the finance sector that the market cannot absolutely assure competition policy, nor can governments if the regulatory mechanisms are inadequate.

Spot on Pelican. Couldn't agree more.
I share your political leanings.

The ideological faith in markets forces alone is a concerning thing.

Clearly a falsehood. A sham of the first order when we consider the collusive behaviour
of those at the top of the food chain. Clearly incapable of acting for the greater good,
the big end of town should expect regulatory change/strengthening as genuine competition is obviously required at the very least.

Health ,education, welfare and law enforcement even essential services etc should all be free of commercial priorities.Business seems to be good at making decisions favouring exploitation without due consideration for the future. I'm not sure we really need their expertise when it comes to the big decisions e.g environment etc as well.

Pelican, labor shifted to the right with Hawke and Keating, who
realised that the old staunch left policies were a failure and
that market economics would bring results. History has proven
them correct.

No longer does a tradesman have to join a union and wave the
flag. He can most likely be better off by borrowing a bit,
starting his own business etc. So we have a whole lot of people
operating as small contractors, making that economy happen
and less likely to vote labor.

Deregulation of the banking industry, allowed that to happen.
Market economics allowed it to happen, people are better off
because of it.

I am always bemused by your blind faith in the supposed
good of govt. For the reality is that those working for
Govt are not struck by altruistic lightning. They commonly
land up feathering their own nests and if it's a Govt monopoly,
they can commonly do so with impunity. That is exactly what
we had when Telstra, Qantas etc, were Govt owned.

The result is enormous amounts of wha wha jobs as you call them.
The result is also much waste. How many Govt depts return
saved funds to the treasury, how many spend every last cent
before the end of the financial year?

But put your blind faith in the good of govt, I certainly don't
as the reality shows otherwise. It becomes a feeding ground
for fat cats, as you should know

Yabby I am always open to valid criticism of government and certainly and my views are quite eclectic acknowledging the goods/bads, and risks inherent in a strong focus on one extreme or the other.

I have yet to see similar criticism from yourself re your faith in market forces and the risks in lack of regulation in some sectors.

The wah wah jobs are an issue but not if essential infrastructure services are manned appropriately.

*I have yet to see similar criticism from yourself re your faith in market forces and the risks in lack of regulation in some sectors. *

Pelican, you clearly don't read too many of my posts! For I have
been shouting from the rooftops for a long time now, that it was
lack of regulation enforcement by that hopeless Bush/Cheney regime,
which carries much of the blame for the GFC. I've also praised
Costello for avoiding the same thing here, by ensuring that we
have a tough banking regulator.

What I am very tiered of, is people like yourself simply blaming
everything on profits, seemingly ignoring everything else.
if you spent the amount of time that I do, having a look at company
financials, it would soon dawn on you that many of them operate on
the slimmest of margins. Building materials companies, many others,
if they are left with 5% of turnover, they are doing well. That
is easily returned through increased efficiencies and cuts in waste,
in comparison to no competition govt enterprises.

Now lets look at power charges and peoples screams about greedy
power companies. Yet the Govt of NSW mandates that people who
install PV panels are paid 60c a unit for years and years. Billions
of $ are added to the power bill, consumers have to pay. It is
a shocking political decision, yet nobody says boo. It must be
those greedy companies, not dumbarse polticians, giving away other
peoples money.

My problem too is with intelligent regulation enforcement. As many
small business owners will tell you, when some nazi like govt
inspector, with few brains but lots of delusions of power, goes
over the top once again, people become mightely pissed off, for
alot of these people don't have an ounce of common sense, or
any understanding of the real world in which we operate.

Now I grant you, common sense and intelligence cannot be legislated
for. But it remains a huge problem.

Yabby
I am also a little sick of people who cannot see the risks in a profit incentive via corporatisation of essential services. Profit, while the impetus for business, is a curse when the drive for obscence profit overrides any other community values. This is particularly pertinent when there is lack of compeitition, price fixing and other monopolistic behaviours either obvious or more insidious; and the lack of appropriate government regulation or oversight. Sometimes the nazis you refer are not government ones.

It is not about 'blaming profits'. This is a simplistic analysis of a desire to foster better and fairer societies.

There are some sectors that are best managed without a 'profit motive' and where services are essential for greater community or collective benefit.

The nazi type bureacrats to which you refer do exist. We have all met them, they are not the majority and there are adequate mechanisms to bring those 'overseers' to account. Even good old ACA and TT bring those bureaucrats to account often overturning the ridiculous decisions that are made. I have seen some pretty bureaucratic and stand over tactics from the private sector in my time too, with little accountability by comparison.

Yabby, working on a slim margin or a larger margin is relevant only to turnover figures and a 22 billion dollar profit is still a 22 billion dollar profit.

I am all for encouraging business and for less red tape particularly for small business, but there is too much corporatisation since Hawke/Keating/Howard etal of what should be public assets IMO.

The role of a public service is to provide services and while one might argue what should/shouldn't be the purvey of government, the bottom line is where there is a real risk of hardship and lack of access to critical services, a more collective approach is best.

Not everything should be driven by a profit motive. You paint this as a negative opinion. Think about what the possible consequences are of wage disparity and access to opportunity and services if we were purely at the mercy of market forces.