Pm's Help!

[AlfAndrews]

Yes I've got a problem with the P.M. too. I think he's a four-eyed little dickhead with no charisma, who lies through his teeth, and leads the worst Government in this country's history.

------------------
**floreat pica**

[AlfAndrews]

Aren't they just. But I'm sure there's probably a few Liberal voters around here who'll have a bit of a go at us if we give them half a chance ... so watch out.

You're right about the private messages, though. I haven't been able to send any lately.

Maybe that's one of the things we've had to sacrifice in order to keep the site viable. If that's the case, then fair enough. I'd rather we had the site operating with no private message facility than have it not running at all.

------------------
**floreat pica**

[nrb]

Alf, just for fun I would love to hear what Governments you think have been good and why.

[Mike]

Spidey's been reporting problems with private messaging for a few weeks. The problem is that it is working fine for me and the system is not reporting any errors; that makes it hard to find the fault.

I've made a few more changes to the code. Please try again and let me know exactly what happens - working or not. Describe any error message you get, or describe what happens if there is no error message from the system.

Thanks

[AlfAndrews]

nrb,

I fear I'm walking into an ambush here ... but what the heck.

Most of what is still good about Australia originated in the early years of the Whitlam Labor government in the early 1970s. It set up a welfare system second to none. And it set up a social infrastructure that would give a voice to the marginalised sections of the community for decades to come.

The Fraser Liberal government of the late 1970s did a lot of threatening to undo the good that Whitlam did. But, in reality, most of the Whitlam reforms stayed in place.

It was the economic rationalism that became fashionable in the mid-1980s that would eventually destroy most of the Whitlam reforms. This trend began to emerge in the latter days of the Hawke Labor government and into the 1990s under Paul Keating.

But these so-called "Labor" governments at least retained some sense of social equity ... albeit a watered-down one ... and one that was being undermined by the relentless march of economic rationalism.

As the political and economic agenda moved further and further to the right, the Labor Party itself had to move further and further to the right to cling to power. As a result, the Labor government that was led by Paul Keating was actually less humane, less caring, and more conservative than the Fraser Liberal government of the late 1970s.

But then the real political disaster struck when John Howard's pack of buffoons took over in 1996.

What a disaster. Especially when they were re-elected for a second term by a 49% "majority", giving them a clear "mandate" to implement so-called "tax reform".

Drunk on this success, they now plan "welfare reform". So having all-but dismantled the wonderful welfare system that Whitlam set up in 1972 ... the Abbott and Costello crowd are now planning to "reform" the welfare system. In other words, make it even harder to qualify.

This ties in with Peter Root-the-Workers' agenda of weakening the bargaining position of those in employment. If you know that getting the dole is going to be a major shit-fight from start to finish, you'll be less inclined to quit your job ... even if you are being forced to work for slave labour wages in sweat-shop conditions.

It's all part of a thing called "globalisation", which means, in effect, reducing Australian workers to the same level of exploitation experienced by workers in Third World countries.

And it's happening ... right before our eyes ... under the government led by Little Johnny Four-Eyes ... the frog that talks.

So go on, nrb.

Tell me what an irresponsible, head-in-the-clouds, out-of-touch, commo ratbag I am. I'm used to it. I cop it on BigFooty all the time.

I'm proud to believe in what I believe.

I don't believe that the Whitlam government was perfect. They probably could have implemented their policies a little more economically. But at least it was a government with a heart ... which is something Abbott and Costello will never have. Because they are fundamentally evil people.

------------------
**floreat pica**

[nrb]

Alf
I have to admit that was not the response I expected and I apologise for my expectations. I certainly feel like I have been put in my place. After reading your words and feeling your obvious conviction I would at least like to try and explain my views.

We clearly come from different points of view, however I think both views are correct. I think the differences are explained by where each of us is looking from. It's pretty clear by the way our democracy swings that each of the views probably has about 50% of the nations support at any given time. The level of support that each view has is generally reflected by how well the economy is going, or not. Neither of the views seem to be what Australians want. When we get a strong welfare government (ie Whitlam) we vote them out. When we get a strong fiscal policy government (ie Kennett) we vote them out. One thing is for sure, we always get the government we deserve. The way our system works neither party (when in government)retains the confidence to make substantial long term change. That is both a good and a bad thing. The government spends far too much time trying to get re-elected rather than trying to deliver good government.

My belief is that it is not possible for Australia to stand alone on a welfare front. Gough implemented many of the policies that we would all like to see. However, I think Gough was implementing policies that were applicable to a far more insular Australia. Whether it is desirable or not we are now very much a part of a global economy and to pay for a strong welfare system we must remain competitive in that economy. For example, there was a time in the past where it was possible and appropriate to extend protection to areas of our industries, however, in the current circumstances if we protect a part of our economy by imposing levies or other protective trade barriers we suffer somewhere else. We are primarily a producing nation as our population is far too small to wield any power as a consuming nation and that means that we are inevitably in the situation where it is difficult to disallow access to our small consumer base to other countries if we want access to their larger base. If we try and be insular and deny access to other countries, the returned favour is far more damaging to us.

If it is accepted that open trade is better for our economy (and I accept that many don't believe it is), we then have to make sure that our goods and services are competitively priced so that we can sell what we produce. A strong welfare system costs money and adds to the costs of what we produce. We then become uncompetitive and sell less. When we sell less and pay less tax the government is faced with a choice of increasing tax or reducing services. We increase taxes and our prices have to go up to pay the taxes and we become less competitive again. When we become less competitive we sell less, our businesses go broke and the strain on the welfare system gets heavier. Up go the taxes and the wheel turns.....

A simplistic view of the conservative ideology is, strong business produces more taxes so we can afford a stronger welfare system and at the same time reduces the number of people that need the welfare system. I would like to be able to see the other view as clearly as that but I must admit I struggle with it. Alf, I would genuinely like to hear your views.

I want both worlds. I want an Australia that is able to compete on a world stage (my belief is that that is impossible to avoid anyway)and an Australia in which all of our people are well looked after, in all ways. What I don't know is how we achieve that and still survive in this world. It would be great if everyone wanted to be informed about the reasoning behind both ideologies and we were able to steer a path that gave us the best of both worlds. I don't think that it is impossible, just improbable given our two party system. Each of the parties is as bad as the other. I particularly hate hearing politicians from both sides saying that "the real enemy is the labor party" or the real enemy is the liberal party". It is that type of thinking that is unquestionably "The real enemy". While our politicians think like that we are doomed to only achieving 50% of what our potential is (at best)

One thing we will probably never agree on is the motives of the PM, Costello, Reith etc. While I think they are probably more personally motivated than is desirable (although who knows why they would choose politics, the best you can hope for is to be totally despised by 50% of the population. Compared to private enterprise positions they are also relatively poorly paid)I don't believe for one second that any of them are evil. In fact I don't think there are many politicians that deliberately set out to be evil. They believe what they believe and that generally comes from where and how they were raised. Surprisingly (not really) not many people choose the side of politics that they prefer or even their preferred ideology at a time in their lives when they are best prepared to make such a decision. Very few people wait until they are mature enough to be able to weigh up the advantages, pitfalls and difficulties before they make such a decision and unfortunately, our politicians are no different. They are influenced in the main but what the adults around them believed when they were growing up. They then perpetrate those beliefs and try to justify them regardless of the changing circumstances.

Oh sh.t, my soap box snapped in the middle and I fell right on my conservative bum. That really hurts..............

------------------

[AlfAndrews]

Hmm.

You sound like a rare fish, nrb.
A conservative with a heart.

I hear what you're saying about the need for a strong economy to finance a welfare system. I just don't see that happening in the present political climate. It seems to be that the benefits of a strong economy are not being passed on to those on the lower rungs of the socio-economic ladder. And there seems to be this belief that we can only make the economy strong by treating welfare recipients like criminals. The dole, these days, is like being on parole. And that is no exaggeration.

Costello and co love to brag about all the "beautiful sets of figures" that their policies are producing. They keep telling us what a wonderful economy we've got.

So, then. Why are charity services in Australia currently stretched to the limit to cover the gap between people's needs and what the system actually provides? Why is homelessness such a massive problem in Sydney and Melbourne? Why is the gap between the rich and the poor getting bigger and bigger all the time?

One of the popular arguments against socialism is that it's OK in theory ... but it doesn't work in practice.

I think the very same argument could be made against economic rationalism and globalisation. We can theorise all we like about the benefits of small government, minimal interference in the market, the "trickle-down" effect etc etc ...

But the proof is in the pudding, I reckon. It just doesn't work.

You're probably right that the sensible thing to do would be to find a way to build a strong economy that still looked after those who were unable to go the pace. And, yes. I think one of the biggest things holding us back is our two-party political system.

Personally, I think things will just keep getting worse because our political system just seems to be getting less responsive to the real needs of the people. "Welfare reform" will be a huge vote winner for the Liberals ... and I believe they will walk the next election in. There is a strong populist appeal in the practice of kicking the poor in the guts, particularly in those mortgage belt suburbs where elections are won and lost.

Excellent post, by the way. And I apologise for my defensiveness in my earlier post. I've just been getting king-hit a lot lately for my political views ... and I prejudged your question as being a lead-in to more of the same.

------------------
**floreat pica**

[Broadie]

An intense, reasoned political debate? What next? A religious forum recognising the value of different religions but the flaws in all organised religion?

For what it's worth, I'm in Alf's camp (politically speaking). I, too, believe the financial disaster of the Whitlam years was also the source of the strongest aspects of Australian Social Democracy, which will be erased if froggy and the ferret have their way.

Economic rationalism DOES NOT WORK. It simply creates wealth by denying wealth - look at what Kennett and the major banks do. They do not create "responsible" fiscal management, as they abandon their social duties to create the illusion of fiscal management.

A simple analogy: every Australian could put themselves in the black by selling their house and car(s). That's all that the Banks & Kennett did / do - sell their major assets.

Meanwhile, the social contract with government is severely strained, if not broken in some areas. Education & health, the two major social responsibilities of our state governments, suffered immeasurable damage which they are still reeling from thanks to Kennett's "fiscal responsibility". And the banks continue to raise fees of their "customers" (should be re-termed "slaves to the cashless society from which we banks reap HUGE benefits") while providing fewer and fewer services. And they have the gall to gloat over increasingly astronomical profit margins.

Hmmm.

go pies.

Nah, that didn't settle me down at all.

------------------
Broadie

[This message has been edited by Broadie (edited 16 January 2001).]

[nrb]

Alf
Thanks for your thoughts, they help me see outside my own little world.

I think the reason why people like the Treasurer and the PM say things like "a beautiful set of figures" is that they simply aren't talking to us. They are talking to business only. Here come some gross generalisations, so read on with caution. The Liberal belief is that if they take care of the front end (big business and the economy), the back end (being people's needs and the welfare system etc) will take care of itself because there will be more prosperity and less need for welfare. They forget about the individual and the problems of those that cannot reap the benefits of a strong economy. On the other-hand,Labor does not speak to business. Labor governments approach things from an individuals point of view and generally bring in social reform and workers rights, often adding significant impediments to profitability. I think their view is that if we look after each individual, everyone is covered. They forget about business and how the country derives the dollars to support these changes.

I keep coming back to the combined approach as being the only solution and I despair a little when I look for politicians that are willing and capable of walking the very vulnerable tightrope of deviating from party lines. Even the independents play party line games when push comes to shove.

However, we have to continue to try and make the changes that are required. Foe example, Health, Education, Defence and a the basic necessities of life should all be bi-partisan portfolios'. These areas should be funded to the full extent before any other policies are even considered. I don't think that there are many Australians who would vote against such an approach. These are also portfolios that could easily be allocated to big business and banks to fund specifically through a tax. There would probably not be any need to increase the overall tax burden to achieve the outcome, just a setting down of a few non-negotiable priorities.

------------------

[Broadie]

nrb,
You are far too compassionate and socially aware to be a true conservative. My own grounding in social political theory comes from the standpoint of the social contract being between individuals and their government, not between business and government. Hence, when our esteemed PM talks of marvellous figures and climate for business I remain unmoved.

Business does not and has never taken care of the individuals - one need only look at the increasing trend of ever-evaporating donations from business to NGOs and the increasing emphasis of business on their profit margin, not how they may be improving service or products.

The whole premise of capitalism and the laissez-faire economy is that rich will exist only if there are poor to exploit.

Marx & Engels may not have provided the solution, but they did identify many of problems correctly.

------------------
Broadie

[nrb]

Broadie
I hope I am compassionate, sometimes its hard to tell whether my compassion is a little self serving as well.

I also think that I am a realist and no matter how much I would like to think that the socialistic approach can work, I have grave doubts about its ability to deal with the external forces that drag on a country. A socialist world? Now thats a thought that makes sense and has great appeal, however if we cannot get the Palestinians and Israel to agree on a comparatively small piece of land, we are very unlikely to get the entire world to agree to adopt a less capitalistic approach to life.

I agree that the social contract is and has to be between the individual and the government that it elects, however, in a global world a government will be unable to deliver on that contract unless it supports the conduits that bring wealth into the country.

We must keep discussing these types of issues and try and improve things in everyway we can. This is life not just a dressed rehearsal.

------------------

[Greg J]

They're all bastards, but our system is better than any of the alternatives around.

Right, Left, who cares, the left has taken all the rights policies anyway, and the right is starting to respond by taking some of the left's policies (I cite as proof the WA liberals and the Federal liberals, forestry legislation).

But in the end, it will not matter, we are heading for, virtually, a monospecies world. Maybe it is because I watched the Richard Attenbrough doco last night, or because I have just finished the book Cod, a biography of the fish that changed the work, and as far as I can see man will always use resources until it is depleted and then move onto another one, and deplete that. I always thought our survival was guaranteed by the infinite universe at our disposal, but would a infinite universe mean if we had no magpies, no fish, no wild animals, no flowers, only rats, cats, and house finches.