I thought that I agreed with a fair chunk of what Craig Emerson says, particularly about continuing competition reform and the removal of unnecessary regulation. But … and you knew there was a ‘but’ … I actually think the things that we disagree upon overwhelms any common ground we might have, as elucidated in his succinct opinion as to where the ALP should not go;
“Steps that Labor should not take are more rights for terrorists, banning all native forest logging, closing down the coal industry, an anti-American foreign policy including closure of the joint facilities, re-regulation of the banks and expansion of the welfare state”.
What about protecting the rights of the individual? What about making forestry a sustainable industry? What about assessing the merits of a coal industry after you have included the full costs of its effects? What about considering the needs of the poor, ensuring that we have more equitable distribution of income, and ensuring equality of opportunity? (Rather than jumping on the close-minded, ignorant and all-too-easy bandwagon of welfare bashing).
I am sure that there is some material of interest in the so-called ‘Progressive Essays’, but if this is the way that Emerson is going to promote his ‘progressive thinking’, I just might send him an essay arguing the merits of an Australia-wide female circmumcision program.
You have missed the point, and should probably go and sit on the other side of the house.