Now that the 2020 magic-dust is settling, some themes are starting to emerge. The over-arching vision of this middle class love-in is a desire for a much bigger, more powerful and more controlling state. A state that pokes its beak into every aspect of our lives. A state that no longer simply seeks to help its citizens make better-informed decisions, but one that reduces individual choice, removes personal responsibility and forces its people to change their behaviour.
So is this now consensus thinking? Is an all powerful nanny-state now the Establishment view? Is George Orwell’s ‘Nineteen Eighty-Four’ no longer read as a warning but an instruction manual? Are there are any dissenters? Rather worryingly, the editorials of all four national newspapers were very positive about the summit as was the leader of the Opposition.
Brendan Nelson, has said he will take these ideas ‘seriously’.
The Age believes these ideas deserve ‘prompt backing‘.
The Australian was more guarded but generally offered an upbeat view of the summit.
The SMH was very excited though did note that the ‘individual recommendations were largely unremarkable.’
The Daily Telegraph called the summit a worthwhile exercise and was generally the most fawning of all four major papers (though they were furious with the ‘irresponsible‘ idea to legalise drugs).
So is anyone in Australia in favour of liberty anymore?
A more benign view is that this is a ‘top of the market trade’ – the product of an economy with 100% employment, half a generation of uninterrupted economic growth and unprecedented health and wealth.
Let’s hope it’s the latter.
Thank goodness for the IPA.
Most bloggers (from all political shades) were unimpressed. So why does the media love it so much? Are they losing touch? Or do they feel pressured to report it in glowing terms?
Andrew Norton was there but bored