Well, what's wrong with it?

Anyone who concludes from this post that I'm heavily biased is right, and frankly a little slow. But that's postmodernism for you.

Yesterday I wrote about the role of opposition, so today, the role of government. First, a little political philosophy for those who haven't encountered John Rawls. Imagine that you are in a position where you know nothing of yourself, your abilities, or how well off you are. You realise that there will be differences between people, their talents, and as a result their wealth - so naturally want to protect yourself from being at the bottom of the pile. You reach the conclusion that there should be differences in society (otherwise it wouldn't function), but society should be geared to benefit the least well off group (in case that were you). If that doens't make sense, Rawls offers a fair bit more depth in A Theory of Justice.

Though awkward to explain, the theory is simple in application: give help to those who need it most, from those who need it least. But put a different spin on things and it's far more sinister. Jessica Irvine in today's Herald identified that 'priority employment areas', "those with the highest regional unemployment rates, the biggest number of Centrelink payments and communities with exposed industries such as manufacturing" received the bulk of government employment scheme funding. Irvine then stated: "These characteristics are also common to Labor electorates."

Obvious, one would think. But when matched with the headline, "ALP seats scoop the pool of job funds", it becomes much more. A constructivist argument if nothing else - show the facts your way, and they'll prove your thesis. Thus we return to my criticism of feminist history: so what?

Historically, employees support the ALP and employers the Liberals. As it happens, it's mostly workers who get sacked in recessions, not decision-makers. If you look objectively at the criteria quoted directly from Irvine's article, it's obvious that the areas being targeted are the areas that need employment boosts. Targeting areas of high welfare payments could even allow the government to redirect funds that would have otherwise been taken in unemployment benefits. The role of government is to provide for the people, regardless of how one thinks that should be done. Perhaps K-Rudd's demands of Abbott should be applied: the policy will be debated when there is an alternative policy.

The decision of where to direct funds was made by government, not by politicians, and went to the areas where it was needed most. Perhaps the government is biased towards Labor areas, but being biased doesn't make you wrong.