Lexi,

I had a brief flip through David Marr's essay, and I could not find anything that the present Labor government is not doing.

Note the Enquiry into the BER which was stuffed with ALP members that unsurprisingly returned a positive finding, littered with inconsistencies and errors.

Also the fierce objection to a productivity review of the NBN.

Dear SM,

This only confirms what many political experts have been saying for years: "The politicians of both the Opposition and the ALP have performed well at what they set out to do. Both need to hold the centre, for without middle Australia, each is done for. The Opposition wants the growing inequality of income, wealth and power distribution to keep going. The ALP wants to tone it down a bit. The Coalition is made up of AGW denialists, and hence the home insulation scheme to them was a total waste of money. The ALP endorses AGW, and its home insulation scheme was by and large successful, but it was naively managed and rorted to buggery by the sort of "entrepreneural" cowboys who are Abbott's natural constituency..."

We therefore need to ask why do we have two parties, each saying much the same thing? "Because a stick has two ends: a proverbial sh**ty one, and a sweet one. Each party tries to hand the other's constituency the end it prefers they have. The Opposition does that best, I grant you!"

Lexi,

Both parties try to control the dialogue. Howard left the legislative framework with regards free speech as he found it, but used his influence to control the message. That Labor completely failed for a decade is due to their inability, which changed under Rudd with work choices.

Julia Gillard is trying the same thing, but has more than met her match in Abbott who despite having fewer resources has set the agenda.

So what I am really getting to is that the control referred to by David Marr is only partially effective, and the democratic debate is really in the hands of who ever seizes it.

With regards "middle class welfare" the ALP would frame the argument that the government is doling out cash to the rich, where the reality is that the "welfare" in most cases comes in the form of tax incentives for behaviour that benefits the state.

A prime example is the tax rebate on health insurance. The purpose of which is to encourage people to take out health insurance, use non public health providers, and free up public resources for those who really need it.

The zero sum game is that the tax "given away" encourages private sector investment and saves far greater investment from the public purse.

The $2bn that the government has stripped from the middle to higher income group to pay for the increased immigration budget, is going to remove much of these incentives, and may well end up costing the state more than it saves.

Dear SM,

Thank You for clearing up a few things for me. I appreciate your courtesy and patience and admire your approach.

cont'd ...

With the growing number of Independents in local, state, and federal politics it appears that sometime in the future the Independents may outnumber the two party system and be forced to form a coalition in government. Under such circumstances it is only logical that the best people would be selected to run the country. What's your opinion on such a possibility - especially when the increasing diversity of the population may not be inclined to a two party system.

i have avoided mention on this topic
cause the heading is clear...'a wiff of coruption'

so lets try to get closer..to the frame of reference
corruption....''at the nbn'

''where the reality is
that the "welfare" in most cases
comes in the form of tax incentives for behaviour
...that benefits the state.""

maybe your talking about corperate welfare?

those 'on' welfare
hardly need the tax incentatives
much [prefering the dole..or welfare check]
ie serving the people as its tasked to do..[not serve corperations]

let alone..bail them out]
but that the people get it back
from govt...*

with intrst..!
sems its all one way
from my tax
to your corperation
or wealthy wage earners

150,000 isnt rich
but its 'rich enough'..to give a little back

was the education [you still owe for]..that relitive?

""A prime example is the tax rebate on health insurance.""

yes egsactly
i pay for you to get free stuff

that i dont get from the public system
BUT THE PRIVATE system COSTS more money
so those EVEN WITH PRIVATE INSURANCE...use the public
and then hospitals DONT CHARGE THE INSURANCE AGENCY..

if you got private
its got you too

but instead the public
paying for private proffits..[man thats insane]