Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
WorkChoices and the perils of denial
We are now being hit by an avalanche of interpretations on the election. This is not one, just an observation on one aspect of it.
It's always hard for a losing party to admit its own mistakes, or at least that the electorate may have been partly right in some of its negative judgements. Especially when it is a hardcore ideological issue. This phenomenon has been very evident listening to Nick Minchin and others on the question of WorkChoices. This policy was the great ideological indulgence of the government, a consensus issue not in the electorate but across the Liberal party leadership. It provided a visceral satisfaction to their deepest identity, as anti-union, anti-Labor, class warriors.
That Workchoices, with its “all power to the employers and destroy the unions” purpose, was rejected by the electorate, consciously and with good reason, does not appear to be something leading Liberals can psychologically accept. Instead, they are stating its rejection was simply the result of a fear campaign. A result of crafty union advertising, the estimate of spending on which seems to go up every time they comment. That the government outspent the union movement on advertising by a ratio of at least 2.5 to 1, if not over 3 to 1, is not mentioned. Nor are the extra dollars spent by business on a blatantly deceptive and partisan campaign.
Advertising is at it most powerful when it is about something most removed from our direct experience. Thus running a campaign to demonise enemies far away in a foreign place is not so difficult. Selling dreams of sex appeal in a (cheap and over-scented) deodorant to young men whose actual experience of relationships with the opposite sex is largely non-existent is also a plausible ask. But selling blue as red to people in daily contact with both colours is much, much harder. The daily reality experienced by many working Australians tells them quite clearly what the ratio of power between them and their boss is. They could see that there were reasons for unease under WorkChoices. Many younger people experienced problems first-hand. Even older, safer, employees had memories of what happens when recessions arrive, and could evaluate the likely consequences of the policy accordingly. The Liberal leadership, having moved into an intractable position, just could not accept that the reaction by many people against the policy was based in people's reality, and not just a result of their false consciousness brought on by advertising.
Defending the policy senior Liberals continue to argue that WorkChoices was actually good for not just most, but all, workers. This mantra is based on an economic simplification, that WorkChoices, in providing flexibility (code for keeping down wages) has resulted in the very high level of employment. In fact employment levels have simply continued the trend that was in place before WorkChoices. Thus claims for the policy can only be counterfactual, that we would not have continued the trend without it. That the government deliberately avoided collecting, or releasing, the data that might have made this claim open to empirical investigation leaves it looking very shaggy indeed.
The Coalition's problem was the actual reality of WorkChoices, its capacity to be felt directly by a very wide section of the electorate, including the crucial group of Howard's working class, who were fundamental to winning those outer suburban seats. There has been a complete clash between the Liberal's worldview and that of key members of the electorate living in the larger world.
In the wake of this a new identity and modification of ideology may be essential for the Liberals to regain credibility and relevance. To stay in denial is to stay clinging to alienation from the electorate. But can they do this? Well there are conservative parties in Europe that can handle notions of social partnership that include unions as well as employers. Unfortunately for the Liberals the losses in this election seem to have left them with perhaps an even larger proportion of hard right representatives, there is even less liberal in the Liberals. Thus an identity built on anti-union, anti-multiculturalism, and other traditional prejudices seems likely to be the glue that will hold a post-Howard party together. In other words the same glue used by Howard but in an even greater strength. A Malcolm Turnbull leadership would have to do more than paper over this, a difficult task.
The crisis of this impasse of worldviews between the Liberals and the employed can give a slant of light on the Costello withdrawal. The “retirement” of Costello may be in part a savvy recognition that the anti-union, class warrior identity that is core to his politics is, for the time being at least, exhausted. In this sense his going is useful to the Liberals, they need to put such views behind them. It might be said that the gain from this has to be measured against the loss of Costello's authority and experience, and the capacity that he might have had to keep a lid on the silk tie redneck elements vying to dominate the party. But then again, if we look at the actual history, Costello's much vaunted progressive social views have been notable by the absence of their articulation. Instead he seemed always happy to sit by while outrageous and grievous offences were committed by the government against civil and human rights. Indeed on occasion he even weighed in on the dog whistling, as with his inane comments on Australian values and the need for a citizenship test in early 2006.
Finally, on a related matter, it's difficult not be awed by the audacity and arrogance with which business groups have stepped forward to demand their inclusion in the making of the new government's industrial relations policy. It would be sound policy to consult them but no such courtesy was extended to the unions when Howard and Costello were going gung ho. I suppose that's the difference between a government obsessed with class war and one that isn't. But it's also an early lesson about life after Howard, that while their greatest political champions may have been banished the arrogance of the big end of town in pursuit of its interest will continue unabated.
 |
|
 |
 |
| © 2005-2011, Webdiary Pty Ltd |
| Disclaimer: | This site is home to many debates, and the views expressed on this site are not necessarily those of the site editors. Contributors submit comments on their own responsibility: if you believe that a comment is incorrect or offensive in any way, please submit a comment to that effect and we will make corrections or deletions as necessary. |
More mischief Malcolm B. ?
I saw a campaign poster for Malcolm Turnbull high on a telegraph pole today on Bondi Road. Square in the middle of his face someone had stuck a small poster you see about the place - "place your rubbish in the bin".
Wrong Guy Right Call
Oil drops dips under $90 and
Like, as if that will ever happen. Hugo's already having trouble filling the shop shelves - already over the barrel so to speak. If oil dips under $80 expect fellow dictator Ahmadinejad announcing the imminent attack back on. Every Exxon shareholder salutes you!
Anybody but .... & please use your influence!
Malcolm, yes, it probably was the relief of getting rid of that disastrous mob!
Anybody, just anybody else!
But when the flat earthers elected Brendan Nelson, and how many hundred years is it that we have endured his droning on, rerunning the election, having learned nothing ....
Please talk to your mate Turnbull ... tell him that you are sure that it is time for a clean break, a new party without the baggage, without the flat earthers ....
My mate TOM
Odds
My money would be on Claude in that encounter, Malcolm. TOM may be highly intelligent, but Claude is single-minded.
Boom Or Bust
Stuart McCarthy
Well yes, in short the boom bust cycle. Nice work Stuart!
The difference between most here and me is that it does not hold any particular fear or any particular excitement to me. Boom bust is avoidable yet inevitable.
People often say this, however; I have yet to read one solid plan that effectively treats it differently. Mostly it is doomsday prophecies and then move on. If you have any suggestions I would be most interested in reading them.
Ian McPherson
You're not teaching me anything.
Class shows.
Malcolm, beneath your lawyerly manner lies an irredeemably good humoured and benign person, try as you might from time to time to be someone else. I think it probable that the Courts get the worst of you and we the best.
Best wishes.
Oh no, Anthony Nolan
I always put jokes in submissions, albeit they are sometimes legal jokes and I frequently make jokes in Court and banter with judges. Goodness, the law is hard enough without breaking the tension from time to time.
Last time I appeared as a Plaintiff in person. Young CJ in Equity started off with "Another step in your political career Mr Duncan?" I was actually trying to stop my idiot finance company repossessing the car. It worked.
Then there was the time I was appearing with a number of other people one of whom had been loudly complaining that he wasn't being paid so I got an old Commonwealth Bank money box which had the top off, labelled it "[name of barrister] Fund", taped some Monopoly money into it so that it was showing, and put it on the bar table in front of the lectern facing the Judge. When Young came on he looked at it and said "Do you have a lotteries permit for that?"
OK, it's not Monty Python but it all helps.
Peace & light: gone?
I take a quick peek at WD and see that all the love and peace of the win on the great weekend has already dissipated!
Eleven hundred years under the heel of Howard, gone, dissipated in mere days, his reign an irrelevancy except only for the reckonings that must surely come.
See: Nazi hunt' launched in S America; Monday, 26 November 2007. A "final effort" is under way in South America to track down and prosecute ex-Nazi war criminals before they die.
Then through some rift in the space - time fabric this remnant of Howard mindless (Hms) creep back.
The electorate has just comprehensively dumped your mob, because it doesn’t like your miserable, cold, brutal view of the world. Because people don’t enjoy seeing ‘management’ of companies taking home multi-millions while serfs are asked, ‘why are you complaining, there are yet more notches in your belt?’
Because the serfs have come to believe that they are entitled to a share of the wealth, and the big companies have been reporting record profits.
The electorate has finally realised that you do not give a damn about them, don’t think about them, don’t listen to them.
So what do they do, the Hms?
They come out and tell the electorate that you got it wrong, you will see it our way! One of them said they only needed to persuade 3 percent to win government!
That is to persuade 3 percent that they were wrong!
As I listened to Nelson, I thought that this may as well be Howard.
What great politics! What brilliant strategy!
Oppose the changes that the electorate clearly voted for. Ignore the fact that they were tired of not being listened to. Keep on reminding them why it was they dumped you for the next eight months. Prove to the electorate just how bloody stupid your mob is!
Evan: Thanks, I had missed Steve Biddulph’s, the party is over. Very good piece and I agree with most of his conclusions...
I wonder if Turnbull has the guts to break away, launch a new party. They would have enough seats to get party status. They would be free of the neanderthals and clear of any taint of the Howard years.
There are undoubtably people who this time voted for Labor out of sheer desperation, anything, anyone had to be better than three more years of Howard.
It would be interesting to see what senators they would have, where the Nationals would go.
What an independent Barnaby Joyce would make!
I have no doubt that the world economy is heading for recession. That the US is so much in debt, internally and externally that if it were a company it would be in bankruptcy on the grounds that it can no longer pay its debts. It will flounder on until the various countries holding its paper face the fact of their loss and write of the massive losses they have incurred by investing in US paper.
But I have been telling anyone who would listen, and friends with investments who won't, this for more than two years now.
A very good background piece: GLOBAL RESERVE CURRENCY; Hello to the euro, goodbye to the dollar; GWYNNE DYER, Wednesday, Nov. 28, 2007.
Ian: who is watching that the Howards are not pinching our wine?
Malcolm: I swear people are smiling around the Junction!! (centre of Wentworth for those who do not know the area.)
Tony: do you know how independents fare under the MMP system? Any references/background gratefully received.
The Cross too
Oil Prices
Ian McPherson:
No (oil prices) it hasn't and here is a basic list of recessions and the reason why they occurred.
What I wrote over a span of posts was that a credit crunch rather than an energy crunch will probably cause the next recession. I also wrote that crude prices and inventories would reflect the economic reality.
I do not appreciate your constant disparaging remarks aimed in my direction. You perhaps believe your attempts to take away from me personally, takes something away from my opinions, bolstering your own opinions - it doesn't.
Recession on the way
Paul, as you know, I and a number of other people, disagree with you. Here's another one supporting my viewpoint:
You and I will get on better when we agree that it's possible we're both right. You always overlook the obvious, IMO.
Paul, I'm not abusing you, I'm teaching you humility. For some of us, some lessons can take a lifetime to learn. Unless you're some sort of economic messiah, which I doubt, you're no different...
Check It Out, Eliot
If you check out the Conservative Party website you will see their policies are more like original Labour Party (UK) polices than Nu Labour under Tony Blair.
One of the things Blair endlessly campaigned on was that he would put an end to Thatcher's privatisation if elected. He dumped that immediately and took to selling off state assets ( water. electricty, hospital services railways etc) at an alarming rate with that hoary old mantra that the private sector always does it better.
Needless to say, they don't, and the British taxpayer now pumps billions of pounds into the private sector to prop up all these services. which are run extremely badly.The "sleaze factor" that brought down John Major now looks tame compared to Nu Labour. Their nearest equivalent would be NSW Labor.
Nor were Howard's policies remotely like Menzies. Old rogue that he was, Menzies had a far more inclusive idea of society than Howard.
None of this matters: when Brendan Nelson is the best you can pick from, the Liberals look like being the Opposition for a few terms, if they last that long. I give Kevin Rudd seven years in power at which time he will hand over to Australia's first female PM - Julia Gillard.
Meanwhile that silly little man will be sitting up in Wollstonecraft rabbiting on about his record as the country's "second longest serving PM", but the only listener will be Janette.
Check yr own facts.
Dear Malcolm, had I written that the only time that Australians elected Labor was during a crisis then your point would be well taken. But that is not what I wrote. Besides, there was an economic crisis that preceded the Wall St crash. It is just that the wealthy tend to not see a crisis so long as their share portfolios are flourishing.
In current time: there is an ecological crisis and Labor will manage it better, if imperfectly. I guess you'll notice it when the feed for the polo ponies runs out.
Thinskinned old chap?
Doesn't pay around here, Anthony Nolan. As usual, I was simply making sure people had accurate information. Suggesting I play polo would, if true, only entail a prosecution for cruelty to animals.
My grandfather was a truck driver old son and all of my grandparents were protected tenants. I do not own any shares or real property. Check your own facts before you launch into class warfare.
Mocha Turnbull, a Pequod for our Malcolm?
Hi Malcolm, "real property". I own an unreal house too, and wonder if you are in ...hmmm....boats? A Pequod? Hunt the Mocha Turnbull?
Here is a really interesting summary of the great Spermwhale and now that the Japs are hunting them I wonder if their great brains will be able to tell between enemy whale hunting ships and tourist whale sightseers. History tells us that the whales did indeed hit back and I wonder what this new generation will think when the blood flows by the savage Jap whale killers’ weaponry.
And will the last living be Ismail?
Ahh, stamp collecting, a dying art perhaps.
Cheers
Be careful what you say...
Malcolm, if you want to remove class warfare from life, remove the "old son" references from your own statements.
Any questions? Old son?
No questions at all
Nowhere for Libs to go unless they go somewhere
"There is no-where for the Liberals to go unless they go to the left as the Conservatives have in the UK."
So, the Liberal Party becomes the new Labor Party, because the Labor Party becomes the new Liberal Party?
What about the Green Party? Could they become the Family First Party? Then maybe One Nation could become the Green Party?
Biddulph, crisis and Labor.
There is a long established tendency for the Australian people to elect Labor Governments in periods of crisis. Whatever the actual success of labor managing crisis there is a perception that it manages more fairly and in the broader interest than the conservatives. Hence, in history:
Scullin - 1929 -1932
Curtin - 1941 - 1945
Chifley - 1945 - 1949.
The difference between the two majors can be summarised as between a party with an emphasis on social deomocracy and one with an emphasis on liberal democracy.
Biddulph has at least got it right on the matter of an ecological crisis. The political task is going to be how to defend and extend democracy during that crisis. Labor will be required to manage the crisis. If that is unappetising to you then may I suggest that you acquaint yourselves with some of the more nutty and extremist ideas generated by the environment movement including but not limited to Murray Bookchin's anarchism, the outright ecofascism of Earth First or the mad Gaian mutterings of the otherwise rational Edward Goldsmith.
There is a tendency within all of the above to subordinate human agency in the name of "nature". Failing now to recognize and respond to the ecological crisis risks legitimising these sorts of extremists who would willingly dispense with both the liberal and social democratic achievements of the last two centuries.
A little accurate history
Anthony Nolan: "There is a long established tendency for the Australian people to elect Labor Governments in periods of crisis."
There is a long established tendency for people to parrot that mantra but it is not borne out by the facts. The first ALP Government formed on 27 April 1904 and left office on 17 August that year. What was the crisis? Arbitration - some crisis. They next came to power on 13 November 1908 and remained in office until 1 June 09. Crisis? Tariffs and pensions. They had their first full term of Government from 29 April 1910 to 24 June 1913. Crisis? There wasn't one; they just won. The first time it could be said they were elected to handle a crisis was the election on 17 September 1914 and they remained in power until Billy Hughes ratted on 14 November 1916. The people kept voting for Hughes until he was rolled at the election on 9 February 1923. The ALP next won under Scullin on 22 October 1929. Again there was no crisis when he was elected but he got clobbered (as Rudd might) two days after he was elected by the Wall Street Crash. The ALP lost office on 6 January 1932.
True it is that the Australian people turned to the ALP in WWII but, overall, history does not support your generalization.
Sources: Grattan M (ed) Australian Prim Ministers New Holland Publishers, Sydney, 2006; Australian Parliament Website.
Oil: Economic Magic Dust
Evan Hadkins
So people here keep telling me. Apparently this means oil is going to buck the trend in the event of an economic slowdown. Believe it or not the peak oil people point to the early 90's recession for having staved off the peak. Will oil having now peaked buck the price and usage trend this time around? Short answer: No.
I am not clear on what this statement means. If it means oil should have a special environment tax or some such this will surely cause a dilemma for your present government. I thought food and gas prices would be coming down. And all this is going to happen in an inflationary environment - wow! I predict the complaints number will be running red hot.
The 'Bumpy Plateau'
Paul Morella: "Will oil having now peaked buck the price and usage trend this time around? Short answer: No."
What you're describing, Paul is precisely the 'bumpy plateau' that Colin Campbell, Jean Laherrere et al have been predicting since circa 2002. This posits that oil price volatility will follow a 'demand destruction' and price shock cycle as follows:
If you examine the obvious oil price volatility and its economic impacts across the world in the last couple of years, you will see that we have entered the 'bumpy plateau'.
There are three reasons that oil needs to be treated differently to other commodities at this time. Firstly, it is intrinsic to almost all forms of economic activity. Secondly, it is the first important commodity to have reached its limits to growth. Thirdly, it cannot be readily substituted by any other commodity in the scale or time required to avoid an economic shock. In order to successfully argue that peak oil is nothing to worry about, you would need to debunk these three points. Good luck.
Economic Magic BS!
High oil prices have led directly to every recession since WW2. Why would we need an illusionist like you to predict otherwise? Are you agreeing or disagreeing? Your statement is incomprehensible.
"Your present government"? Do you mean Labor? Again, this is just another incomprehensible mess...
Crunch Is a Chocolate Bar
Stuart McCarthy
The only "crunch" that is happening is of the credit kind; now of course European bound.
Oil usage will decline as world economic growth declines. This in turn will lead to rises in inventory and an overall decline in the price of oil. Added to economic pressures will be the pressures from alternative energy investments - and economically forced lifestyle changes that will begin to gain momentum irrespective of political recalcitrance. Oil is a product the same as any other product - it does not operate mutually exclusively from the rest of the economy.
Oil usage will only decline when we run out of it.
Paul Morrella: Oil usage will decline as world economic growth declines.
Why would anyone think that the demand for oil will decline?
Oil usage will decline as we run out of oil and then the price will really begin to soar. It will become a commodity that only the rich will be able to buy.Rationing vs Demand
John Pratt: "Oil usage will decline as we run out of oil and then the price will really begin to soar. It will become a commodity that only the rich will be able to buy."
In World War 2 there was a supply shortfall of oil in Australia, caused by the war and the need for military use to have priority. The government did not let the usual supply-demand mechanism of a free market regulate distribution of the remainder, which would have led to the outcome you allude to above, and possible social unrest. It fixed the price of petroleum products (along with that of everything else) and rationed petrol.
People were issued books of ration tickets and had to present so many tickets with every petrol purchase.
So, inevitably a black market developed and the poorer motorists could on-sell their petrol allocations to richer ones. Effectively, rationing became to some extent an income redistribution mechanism.
Again, I knew a Sydney man who had all his life wanted to own a Rolls-Royce. He eventually bought one, but found he could not drive it into the city and park it, because when he returned to it all too often he found that resentful drivers of lesser breeds had vented their frustration on his Rolls by scratching the duco as thoroughly as they could. Very expensive to patch up. He finished up only driving it on weekend excursions to the country, and leaving it in the garage the rest of the time and admiring it there.
I should imagine that, left to itself in a period of short supply for a commodity in such popular demand as petrol, the market mechanism would trigger an outbreak of class warfare that would make any mobile vehicle or its driver into a target.
Class warfare
I should imagine that, left to itself in a period of short supply for a commodity in such popular demand as petrol, the market mechanism would trigger an outbreak of class warfare that would make any mobile vehicle or its driver into a target.
That could manifest itself particularly in the outer burbs. With long commuting distances, little public transport and oversized mortgages for overpriced oversized McMansions than inner urban areas those burbs are time bombs for the bursting.
The recipe for suburbia is really easy. Take a city and add energy. Suburbia will result like water running down hill bar for two exceptions. One is geographical barriers and the other is land zoning. We have suburbia not because people have chosen it but because we have had lots of surplus cheap high quality energy. People don't choose what they cannot afford, individually or collectively. I have never chosen to buy a Rolls Royce for example..This cheap energy will be withdrawn over the next couple of decades, starting probably now, and the result will be tears.
Best financial advice for energy constrained times is - stay out of debt.
Crunch
Oil is not the same as some other products - it's not renewable and it has a more central place in our economy.
The economy does not operate separately from the rest of the environment.
It's Over
Biddulph is correct.
We now have a right wing party that the Aussie people will tolerate with Labor and Kevin Rudd. There is no-where for the Liberals to go unless they go to the left as the Conservatives have in the UK.
However, Rudd is unlikely to follow the policies of UK's Nu Labour which was just a continuation of Thatcherism. He has all their mistakes to learn from.
Oil The Product That defies All Economics Known To Man
Stuart McCarthy
I note the spot oil price went into decline. Must not have "peaked" this week? Strangely the decline coincided with declining world economic forecasts. Sheesh, we even learn that U.S greenhouse gas emissions fell in 2006 - and that U.S gas inventories are "ample" going into winter. Though, what would I know.
"Declining" Oil Prices
Libs Drowning In De River Of De Nile?
The Liberal Party. Its liberality has been in question since its inception, so its name is ultimately a lie — it has always represented the conservative side of Australian politics. Nothing wrong with that: someone has to do it. But Howard, and the government he led, has never reflected true conservative values. Like Maggie Thatcher, he is more radical than conservative. Unlike her, he picked the wrong time and place to be what he is.
The nature of the Australian electorate is roughly two parts conservative, one part progressive. Radicals at either end of the spectrum find their followers, but leave a nasty taste in the electorate's mouth: it spits them out.
Denial is both the central strength, and chief limitation, of the reactionary.
The end of the Liberal Party
I laughed a solid minute and a half when I read Biddulph's exultant fantasy piece. Here's the petit bourgeois at its most deluded and conceited.
In essence, he's arguing that the Labor Party has shifted right (true), and 'therefore' it's place will be taken by the Greens. Permanently. And 'therefore', the Liberal Party and conservative values have been vanquished. By the conservative values espoused by the Labor Party.
So, he's arguing that the centre of the political bell curve has shifted right - and the main beneficiary of this will be the Left. That's logic for you.
Denial is both the central strength, and chief limitation, of enthusiasm.
Secondary Argument
Eliot, Biddulph's main, and far more interesting argument, is the imminent collapse of the world economic order. In particular, he mentions the elephant in the room that most economic commentators have been avoiding, namely the US unmaintainable and particularly unjustifiable lifestyle while being the world’s largest debtor.
The Saudi Arabia, Japan and China currently hold $1 trillion in US treasury bills effectively underwriting nearly half of the ongoing US foreign debt. Japan and China are our major trading partners and should their economies falter because of a US collapse, Australia’s economic health is also seriously threatened.
The survival of the Liberal Party is really a minor issue. All over the world we have seen the convergence of political philosophy to the point where there really are not a distinct Left and Right to politics. Conservative politics, worldwide, has failed to address the shortcomings in the emergence of global business merely seeing it as a raison d’etre to trumpet its supposed economic credentials.
The fact that global business has real and powerful ethical constraints is recognised grudgingly by those who identify with the Right. However, I doubt that what is now the Left recognise those constraints much better.
Be that as it may, in the UK, in Australia and soon now in the US, the “Left” side of politics looks to be entrenched for quite some time. In the UK, the Conservatives are staring into the abyss looking for a cause to champion. In the US, the Republicans will suffer the same disintegration because of their unquestioning support for the religious fairytale encompassed in “God Bless America”. The Democrats may yet follow them if they continue the idiocy of supporting and encouraging the Religious Right.
Here in Oz we see the truth of “a week is a long time in politics”. Eleven years of Howardism is disowned and ditched in a few days. All that JWH stood for is dust as a new pragmatism grips Nelson’s Liberals.
The Treasurer Might Learn Something?
David Curry: "It was an ideological indulgence of John Howard's that had nothing to do with lowering unemployment or stimulating the manufacturing sector or any other argument you want to parrot."
The only message I constantly read parroted is the one above. I happen to think re-regulation of the labor market is fraught with danger. I have gone over the reason why it is I think this on numerous occasions. The politics of the situation is of no interest to me. The economics of the situation are a different matter. If manufacturing leaves and unemployment rises do you or the people you support propose a solution? People losing their jobs may like an answer to that question. The only indulgence that goes around on here at times is political gilding the lily indulgence.
Steve Biddulph
Steve Biddulph has a piece in today's SMH saying that we are seeing the end of the Libs and the rise of Labor vs the Greens - within six years.
He agrees with me so it must be insightful. What do others think of this idea?
What do others...? You mean me?
Evan: What do others think of Biddulph's idea? Well a number have spoken before me, but for myself I agree with elements of the Eliot and also the Stuart comments. I think Biddulph should have taken his show on tour before opening in Sydney.
Thirty percent, even if that is what Liberal support falls to, is still more than what the Greens command today, and the membership base of the Liberal Party is more than a bunch of wild-eyed Hayek-quoting Friedmanite ‘economic rationalist’ zealots. Not that I was ever a member, but now that Howard (who was the zealot who led the charge against Tony Staley and the other ‘wets’) is gone, the younger ‘wets’ will probably come back. The ALP is a broad church, but not so broad as to be able to accommodate them.
The Greens would probably have won more votes if some of their policies were a bit better thought out. Their open-door policy on refugees and migrants has terrific appeal to youthful idealists who don’t consider its implications, but it's a sinkeroo for everyone else.
It would be a refreshing change if Rudd and Gillard have broken with the Hawke-Keating tradition of power for its own sake, but we’ll have to wait and see on that. Kevin Rudd is very ambitious, and possibly overly so. As many a mountain climber before him has found out to his cost, you find out what your limitations are by stepping past them. But more interesting, are the consequences of the bet Biddulph has made should he lose, and Rudd and Gillard turn out to be into power for its own sake. Does that mean that he loses his 30 years as a psychologist? Where will they go? Who will finish up with them? (I hope I get a couple.)
Denial with a capital 'D'
Evan, you appear to have missed the deeper significance of Biddulph's piece:
Yet Biddulph is confident that the ALP government is poised to meet this challenge:
I don't share his confidence. Even if the ALP is aware of peak oil (some of its key figures certainly are), in all likelihood they are almost as much in denial about the problem as the Libs. They will probably wait until it's too late to implement an effective plan, then, like every government before them, they will blame their predecessors. Moral cowardice is a trait that is almost universal among politicians.
Your Guys Are Now In A Decision Making Position
With respect, Paul
How the hell would I know? I wasn't aware I was doing a press conference as the new Treasurer.
And they're not exactly 'my guys'. I voted Greens in the Senate. I happen to think Malcolm Turnbull is a halfway decent bloke.
Workchoices, though, was horrible. It was an ideological indulgence of John Howard's that had nothing to do with lowering unemployment or stimulating the manufacturing sector or any other argument you want to parrot. It was ultimately about destroying the unions.
Even Howard's own party is running from the stink, at full speed.
Richard: Suspiciously so?
Collective bargaining in the level playing field
"I know you think the whole thing was a beat-up by Labor and the unions, but do you think the idea of trying to destroy the right of workers to collectively bargain was a little bit too far to the right for Australia? "
My goodness, are we going for some personal best in petitio principi or something?
Let's beg those questions one by one, shall we:
1 - I know you think the whole thing was a beat-up by Labor
How would you know that?
2 - the right of workers to collectively bargain
As opposed to the union obligation to not individually bargain?
3 - was a little bit too far to the right
As opposed to, say, Cuba? Or China? Or North Korea?
4 - for Australia
Oh, goody. A question that's not entirely leading.
The "right" to collectively bargain in a globalised economy makes about as much sense as "the level playing field" in the international market for primary products.
It will be as cold comfort for unemployed workers with the right to collectively bargain when their jobs go offshore to China; as it is already for Australian farmers enjoying the benefits of the 'level playing field' whilst competing against their subsidised counterparts from Florida or Bourgogne.
N'est pas?
Latin lessons
Eliot – Hi! Latin and French in the one post, you are a clever boy.
1. Several references in your recent posts to a fear campaign on workchoices.
2. Right.
3. see 4.
4. Not a question.
As for the final part of your post, you beg a few questions of your own. Is collectively bargaining the same thing as tariffs? Where is the evidence that collective bargaining by employees, which after all was the norm until a couple of years ago, results in jobs going to China?
Putting production line workers on AWAs with identical conditions has nothing to do with globalisation and everything to do with exploitation of the working poor.
The argument that reducing award conditions to five basics and shifting the employer/employee balance almost all the way to the employer was the best way to ensure low unemployment, was one the Coalition rode all the way into a train wreck.
It was sophistry.
Did you really vote Labor, Eliot?
Double Edged Sword
Ming the forgettable
Michael, I was afraid that Howard was going to walk in the steps of his predecessor Menzies, because of course Menzies very nearly lost the 'same' election (1961, after 11-12 years in power); and when he didn't, they stayed on for another eternity. My fear, as a chardonnay sipping, latte quaffing, tree hugging, whale saving, letting the Franklin flow, lefty was always that this election was going to be a re-run of 1961.
As to what Menzies did - well, he went to the cricket, fawned on royalty, praised South Africa's apartheid rulers, made the Liberal Attorney-General Chief Justice of the High Court, took us into Vietnam, and probably some other things.
And he had such a nice voice, unlike that awful Mr Calwell, as my elderly female relatives said, belying the theory that picking poltiicians on shallow grounds is some new invention.
Ming tong tiddle eye brow
"Can we finally put to rest this completely boring and bogus claim that Sir Robert Menzies was some sort of deity."
Not to mention Harold Holt. He couldn't even walk on water.
And Another Thing
Can we finally put to rest this completely boring and bogus claim that Sir Robert Menzies was some sort of deity?
This tosh was repeatedly pushed by a media fixated on Howard and his so-called legacy that appeared to contain little more than emulating a man who was able to cling to power with a slight majority because of a divided Opposition. Does anyone under 50 remember anything about Menzies or what he did? It was yet another symptom of Howard's blinkered leadership and the sheep that allowed him to rule Australia like his personal fiefdom where only Howard views were to be tolerated and the country moulded into his version of paradise.
The bell curve is bigger in the middle
Why, in every country where opposition to the ruling party is not prohibited, are there at least two contending political parties?
While not absolutely true, there is definitely a tendency, isn't there, for party affiliation to group around two centre parties in a bell-curve sort of way?
Partly this could be explained by the need for parties over the long run to raise sufficient funds and get other economies of scale to effectively campaign through mass media.
It might also be due to what marketers call the concept of mimimum differentiation.
If you are situated too far left or right, or otherwise too extreme in outlook and presentation, you are not likely to get much support from across the political spectrum.
That favours moderate parties, which tactically then tend to converge towards the centre, ending up like Labor and Liberal, Democrat and Republican, Democratic Socialist and Christian Democrat, etc.
So, yes, it makes sense that in open, liberal, pluralist societies, you'll get centrist convergence focussed on two large parties. As with any other commodity.
In the same way as there's Holden and Ford, Kellogs and Sanitarium, Coles and Woolies.
The more marginal, crack-pot alternatives stay stuck out on the fringes.
Communists and Fascists, Smart Cars and Ladas, mung bean burgers and wheat grass juice, goths and punks, etc, etc.
These taste preferences may be no less sincerely held, but they're less popular.
why two parties?
I don't have a definitive answer but putting on my political scientist's hat I would note firstly the historical aspect of liberal democracy. In particular its growing up alongside capitalism and the importance of economic foundation for political action in such societies. In terms of ideology and interest the 19th and 20th centuries are dominated in the West by battles between capital and labour. In developing, post colonial countries the same often applies. Social issues and questions of policy have grown out from, as well as been subsumed by, these two interests and the discourses they fund and generate.
Second, the two party system also stems from deliberate design in many of the late 20th century democracies, after Hitler and after communism. Note that the actual form of voting has a direct effect on the formation of a party system. In the US and the UK first past the post voting reigns over a system of seats based on geography. The Liberal Democrats struggle on in Britain but that is almost an anomaly and source of wonder. If the UK had preferential voting, let along Proportional Representation, the two party system in the UK would, on past results, be at least a three party system. Not surprisingly, therefore, neither the Tories not Labour would want to switch to this system of voting. First past the post virtually guarantees a two party system.
In the continental European countries, with more modern and democratic constitutions, PR and Party lists apply. There are more parties but the tendency is still toward coalitions led by one of two major parties. In part this might be attributed to the points made about economic resources above. It has also been encouraged by the imposition of quotas of 5 to 7% of the vote to gain any representation, which effectively knocks out smaller parties.
Finally, in a diverse late capitalist society, catch-all parties that tailor their policies widely are most likely to gather most votes. The incumbency or large status this gains them in turn gives them resources to reproduce themselves into the future. Resources that their challengers lack. Thus is a sort of historical inertia set in train.
Of course in Australia we have just seen the demise of a third party, the Australian Democrats, and the Liberals are out of power everywhere. This could be ominous for them. Remember that as a party they were only invented in the 1940s, before that other parties of similar persuasion held their place. This could happen again, but I think renovation from within the Party is more likely than their replacement. But if they are still out of power everywhere in four years, well it could be a different story.
Also on the fringe, Eliot?
And like Workchoices, Eliot? I know you think the whole thing was a beat-up by Labor and the unions, but do you think the idea of trying to destroy the right of workers to collectively bargain was a little bit too far to the right for Australia?
Malcolm Turnbull, and now even Joe Hockey, seem to think it was.