http://andrewbartlett.com/blog/?p=1667

The eventual defeat of the current federal government, perhaps as soon as late 2007, will inevitably trigger a wide-ranging discussion on the centre-right of goals and strategies. A strong case can be made that the Coalition received little direct political credit for outspending Labor in education, health and welfare.

The irony of which would surely not be lost on many commenters here.

Why do you think I keep talking about Howard’s Soviet Australia?

Another way this regime bodgies up its statistics is by the use of military and security contractors: paid for by you and me but not officially on the payroll.

“I am currently living north of the 22nd parallel”.

Aaah, now I see where your hostility to reform is coming from …. yes, you have probably been listening to some of the bludgers who are terrified at the thought of being tipped off their own little gravy-train if a “new state” or any similar reform is made; they’re probably out on the streets right now screaming for Beattie to be hanged, drawn and quartered; they’ve always been an obstacle to change, any change; if they had their way, the wireless and the motor-car would be abolished and God Save The King would still be the national anthem [bloody troglodytes]. They’ve always tried to stop a “new state ” coming into being.

Apart from these troglodytes, no doubt everyone else would feel that there are potential efficiencies and economies-of-scale that could come out of forced amalgamations, Trouble is, they are only potential ones and may not necessarily be as good as they seem.

What is so stupid is that Beattie had a perfect opportunity to bring in long overdue reform and showed he was ready to make bold moves to bring about change …. and then stuffed up, in large lumps, that golden opportunity to create regional or provincial or whatever entities that made economic and social sense and instead went for merely abolishing “rotten borough” councils.

Concepts like devolution and the subsidiarity about which Prof. Sampford spoke seem beyond the grasp of the Beattie government [and their Opposition can't find the dictionary, let alone the word ]. This was the Beattie government’s second huge blunder: they failed to see that moving more decision making power to a local area would generally lead to more efficiency and revenue-saving in the long run.

http://www.cis.org.au/Policy/summer_06/summer_06_pdfs/summer_2006_norton.pdf

By the way, according to this graph at the ABS, then number of public servants has steadily declined from 1988 to 2000 and then shows a much smaller upswing through to 2005. The total number has decreased overall in that period from more than 160,000 to around 133,000, further supporting the Libs’ application of their philosophical commitment to smaller government.

The graph doesn’t account for the number of employees who are still paid by the federal government but are no longer employed by departments and thus members of the APS but by corporatised agencies. I suggest you look at the critique of Howard’s big government conservatism from Andrew Norton who is himself a member of the Liberal Party.

They are a grab for power only in so far as they further limit the power of trade unions.

I’m not sure how you square that with the fact that they strip the state systems of coverage, and thus state parliaments and industrial relations commissions of power. Subsidiarity is not the only principle one can counterpose to centralism. It’s a traditional justification for federalism that it enables policy not just to be directed to local needs (and there are substantially different labour markets and average wage levels across Australia) but also for policy innovation and experimentation. So, some jurisdictions (notably Tasmania and NSW) introduced innovative gender equity models in their legislation which were later picked up by others (now junked by WorkChoices, along with much else). In addition, it’s much harder to have direct contact and influence on policy makers and representatives in Canberra than in a state capital or with a state member who has a smaller electorate to service.

These are all traditional anti-centralist arguments Liberals used to make, and they have much validity.

Selling off Telstra is hardly populist and the same can be said of his power grabs on workplace relations and water.They’re not populist, they’re big government neoliberalist.

The sale of Telstra is hardly a grab for power or a move towards big government but rather is an example of privatisation (which of course is the philosophical antithesis of socialisation). Big government is contrary to the basic beliefs professed by the Liberals. From the Liberal party’s website:

We believe in the inalienable rights and freedoms of all peoples; and we work towards a lean government that minimises interference in our daily lives; and maximises individual and private sector initiative.

(Further, neo-liberalism defends the free economy, free trade and small government.)

Neither is the Murray-Darling basin water initiative a power grab. (It is, incidentally, a case where it would be difficult to apply the principle of subsidiarity especially since the basin itself drains parts of Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and all of the ACT.) If it is appropriate that one authority should manage the system and its water rights instead of the current multi-jurisdictional model, then the Federal government is probably the logical choice.

As far as workplace relations go, they are an application of the theory which holds that deregulation of the labour market (including the reform of unfair dismissal laws) will stimulate employment. They are a grab for power only in so far as they further limit the power of trade unions.

By the way, according to this graph at the ABS, then number of public servants has steadily declined from 1988 to 2000 and then shows a much smaller upswing through to 2005. The total number has decreased overall in that period from more than 160,000 to around 133,000, further supporting the Libs’ application of their philosophical commitment to smaller government.

Howard clearly listens to what Blainey has to say given that he’s appointed him as part of a panel to review the History syllabus.

This is hardly surprising. Mr Howard has made it clear that he doesn’t subscribe to the ‘black-armband’ view of Australia’s history so this was a no-brainer.