ao sung wu - nother absurd distraction for the Coalition to confront, I suppose ?

I don't believe so. Admittedly I'm cynical about politicians, particularly the major party legal leech types, however it appears to me there is no shortage of evidence that the RAbbott acted with demonstrable ill intent toward One Nation and especially Pauline Hanson. Whether or not HE actually pulled the trigger is immaterial, the clown clearly orchestrated the chain of events leading to the demise of One Nation. What Pauline Hanson was attempting to achieve was to force much needed accountability on the political circus, even if in hindsight she may have been more successful if she'd chosen a somewhat less controversial subject. That said, I fully supported her right to be heard, as did a lot of Australians who will NEVER vote for the RAbbott or for that matter, any federal LNP in which he is leader, purely because of his unethical treatment of One Nation. I am also very keen to see the early doings of the red-headed witch fully investigated as I have no doubt whatever that she knowingly & intentionally indulged in 'funny business', dealings which incidentally caused her then employer to dispense with her services.

Poirot,

I hope i have never given any impression i dont listen to the Left, i do. I have even sourced som data from socialist left sources. Most people have something useful to say. Marx did not become famous for nothing; did not one UK urvey vote Marx the greatest figure ever.

In fact, i once wrote to an editor of a magazine i used to get published in and suggested that a middle ground perspective was needed in Australia given the simplicity of extremes on both the left and right, and the need for all commentators to lift their game.

When at uni i was asked by one extreme left-leaning academics why i was such a supporter of liberal democracy given the horrors of the world and even the explitation caused by capitalism (which i referred to). While i think i am still learning, some 15 years later to be a better student, i stillhave a pragmatic view that a world of liberal democracies is still the best possibility for humanity due to democratic accountablity and so on.

While i know full well that many problems remain from economic competition, i am now worred that economic success by authoritarian naitons offers some sort of reason for some in Australia to dismantle our social welfare system. I believe this is not necessary and would mark the final capitulation of the hopes of the Enlightenment tradition. This is not to suggest i do not support the streamlining of social welfare programs.

I have long argued that the key to a sophisticated liberal democracy is how we adjust our production and consumption balance wihout turning in on ourselves.

I think Australia can do it, but we need great leaders, great interest groups, great consensus, great discussion, and great sacrifice by all to achieve the goal.

We also need politicians to lead by example, not giving themsleves pay rises and expecting others to take on all the burden of reform.

That's a really good post, Chris.

I'm sure the "middle way" is the only path to a stable and sustainable modern society.....of course, more difficult in a globalised market.

Do you remember this article/lecture I once posted by Tony Judt on social democracy?

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2009/dec/17/what-is-living-and-what-is-dead-in-social-democrac/

Poirot, i just read first page and i agree with this persepctive. I will give it a more detailed read tonight.

We should celebrate the diversity of thought in our liberal democracies, but we should also strive for ongoign analysis and ideas that can redefine a nation's direction to take account of the strengths and weaknesses of recent trends.

It is true that Australia has long been a lucky country, but i see enough commonsense in community and people to address our problems, albeit that perfect solutions are hard to achieve in a competitive world.

We all just need to lift our game.

From what I can see the Scandinavian countries are the best places in the world to live. They have a high average standard of living, a smaller gap between rich and poor than in most countries, a low index of corruption, political freedom, environmental consciousness, very good public schools, a higher percentage of GDP given to foreign aid than most developed countries, a free press and an independent judiciary.

They are capitalist welfare states.

Those who want complete laissez-faire capitalism call them socialist and point out their high taxes. They do have high taxes, but the people get a lot for those taxes.

Marxists criticise them because they are capitalist.

I think we could do well to emulate them. They seem to have a lot of things right.

While each country has different tradtions and a different take on the world, there is no doubt that Scandinavian countries do a lot of things well, albeit they have altered greatly in the last 20 years.

Sweden, as an economic player, is also very capitalist. When i told a few that Sweden did not have an oficial minimum wage, they were dumbfounded.

Economic success is never delivered by mere adherence to a theory; it is about assessing what is needed and what each player needs to do to improve their situation.

Such countries prove that higher taxes is not necessarily an impediment to high growth or well-being, albeit that there are enormous differences between their societies and their location when compared to Australia.