Anyone Politically Involved (1 Viewer)

[walrusbear]

There is even a question as to whether the Australian public is even interesting in having a 2nd party.

i'd say it's in their interests
whether they know it or not

 

[Generator]

The economy may be a priority, but the ALP shouldn't just disregard its social-democratic stance merely because neoliberalism, 'minimalistic government' and middle-class welfare are popular in certain circles.

At the federal level, the ALP shouldn't be focusing on tax 'relief' and economic management, rather its focus should be on ensuring the effective provision of public services as a part of its economic management agenda. I cannot help but think that if the ALP sought to restore confidence in public services (federal, concurrent and state) by ensuring that funding, coordination and delivery arrangements are both effective and transparent, then the population at large wouldn't be too fussed with not being offered a tokenistic tax. You never know, they may then consider swinging back to the ALP, too.

National security is another consideration, and as recent statements show, the ALP is more than willing to outdo the federal Government in order to be seen as being 'tough' on terrorism. In this instance, I'm of the opinion that the ALP should forget about being in oppositon and the need to best the Jones and highlight how effective current arrangements already are, in addition to both praising and criticising the Coalition on the points that it considers to be relevant. People may want the government to do all that it can, but there's nothing to be gained by baseless scaremongering and cheap opportunism.

Oh, and getting rid of Beazley would help. The Latham experiment may have failed, but their Tory in disguise approach is hardly going to galvanise an opposition in need of renewal.

 

[walrusbear]

The economy may be a priority, but the ALP shouldn't just disregard its social-democratic stance merely because neoliberalism, 'minimalistic government' and middle-class welfare are popular in certain circles.

At the federal level, the ALP shouldn't be focusing on tax 'relief' and economic management, rather its focus should be on ensuring the effective provision of public services as a part of its economic management agenda. I cannot help but think that if the ALP sought to restore confidence in public services (federal, concurrent and state) by ensuring that funding, coordination and delivery arrangements are both effective and transparent, then the population at large wouldn't be too fussed with not being offered a token tax cut and they may then consider swinging back to the ALP.

National security is another consideration, and as recent statements show, the ALP is more than willing to outdo the federal Government in order to be seen as being 'tough' on terrorism. In this instance, I'm of the opinion that the ALP should forget about being in oppositon and the need to best the Jones and highlight how effective current arrangements already are, in addition to both praising and criticising the Coalition on the points that it considers to be relevant. People may want the government to do all that it can, but there's nothing to be gained by baseless scaremongering and cheap opportunism.

Oh, and getting rid of Beazley would help, too.

i'd have to agree with that
i think the tendency for labor to 'look to the past' is only indicative of the popularity of economic rationalist views. the party is built on social ideals and the current train of thought can only go so far.

and Beazley is worthless. leadership will only come with time.

 

[Iron]

The only thing either party needs to worry about is the last week of an election campaign. Bit like the hsc. The rest is fluff.
And I wouldnt write off Beazo...It could still happen

 

[Z_Nizzle]

leadership will only come with time.

[INSERT: EVIL LAUGH]

 

[frog12986]

The similarities are purely based upon a philosophical approach adopted by Howard, rather than any personal similarity or genuine like-mindedness...

The common thread that exists between the approaches of Menzies and Howard, is the emphasis and promotion of the individual and the term 'mainstream' which is bandered about so often. More specifically however, there are immense differences that exist, not in the philosophical policy objectives of each, but rather the means implemented in attaining those objectives.

Since the permeation of 'neo-liberal' thought end 'economic rationalism' throughout much of the world in the 1980's, a progression right has occured on the political spectrum, which has fundamentally served to further remove the approach Liberal party of 2005, to that of the the created party in 1944...

The following quote from the Liberal Party website itself, encapsulates the plight of Menzies in establishing a "Liberal" party:

what we must look for, and it is a matter of desperate importance to our society, is a true revival of liberal thought which will work for social justice and security, for national power and national progress, and for the full development of the individual citizen, though not through the dull and deadening process of socialism

The terminology and emphases are in fact very similar to the rhetoric that is so prevalent in the modern political and social climate...

Howard was well aware of the importance of mainstream support and applied the very basic tenets of Menzies rationale in his quest for support. The public devotion has expresses to the man clearly indicates..."the best friend the Australian worker has ever had" etc etc, the loss of traditional 'Labor heartland and mainstream' seats etc etc...


The following is from an address made by Howard at the 50th anniversary celebration of the Liberal Party...

We are not a party that is dominated by sectional interests, we are a party that’s always tried to govern for the mainstream

Again there is the reiteration of 'mainstream' which was a key founding principle promoted by Menzies himself. .... 'aint that a grand old term..gotta love our mainstream..as Mr Latham is now again part of the mainstream, maybe he'll adopt the Liberal vote...

In a 'politically' ideological sense, the connections are extremely lucid, however economically, the immense differences begin to emerge..

 

[walrusbear]

liberalism in its social sense (at least, accord to J.S. Mill) isn't about serving the 'majority'
the liberal party service to the 'individual' is very specific in who it advantages

that's my two line point about the 'Liberal' party

 

[erawamai]

what we must look for, and it is a matter of desperate importance to our society, is a true revival of liberal thought which will work for social justice and security, for national power and national progress, and for the full development of the individual citizen, though not through the dull and deadening process of socialism

There isn’t much difference from Labor's 'Light on the Hill' and Menzies 'forgotten people'. Menzies was right in identifying the problems of socialism and his party was set up as an alternative. Certainly people like me, who belong to the center to center left today, would have voted for Menzies. Socialism is not the bogyman anymore and the opposition in Australian does not represent socialism. Especially when most of the neo liberal reforms of Australian government occurred when the ALP was in power. Howard, as treasurer under Fraser, presided over an economy that still had tariff protection and the Australian dollar was fixed.

Some members of the Liberal party, say good old Petro, feel that the modern Liberal party has moved away from serving the 'forgotten people' to perusing neo liberal economic goals and forgetting about the things that are not measured or taken account of in neo classical economics. Essentially social capital.

So far the Australian people have accepted the erosion of social capital and accepted the corresponding increase in economic wealth or personal wealth (even though much of this is on credit). There will be a time when the Liberal government pushes its ideology too far. When the 'mainstream' (again whatever that is) starts to feel the pinch. Some may argue that we already are feeling the pinch of the loss of social cohesion created by excessive individualism. But the pangs of concern about long term social problems can always be allayed with a tax cut and the purchase of a shiny new consumer good.

Menzies was fighting against the prevaling norm of Keynesian economics and large state social democracy. Today it is different. Today the prevailing norm is neo liberalism. I think it is important that we be able to understand these movements in the historical context. Neither outlook is perfect and both have substantial shorfallings. It was right for Menzies to stand up agsinst the failures of Keynesian economics and borderline socialism. It is right today to stand up against fundementalist neo liberal economists. It's just goes in cycles with people questioning and destroying the norm of the day.

Essentially neo liberalism, at the macro level, is just as oppressive as socialism is on the individual level. I tend to be suspcious of anyone who holds either model up as unquestionable truth.