Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
New, fresh, plan - Rudd's big three
Great start, Kevin.
New leadership, new leadership, new leadership. Mantra 1.
Fresh ideas, fresh ideas, fresh ideas. Mantra 2.
A plan for our future, a plan for our future, a plan for our future. Mantra 3.
The key elements: Education revolution, high speed broadband for all Australians, public hospital cleanup, climate change front foot so 'we don't destroy the environmental future of young people', workplace reform, an exit strategy for Iraq..
And Big Kev even threw in the 'vision' word, just once, his 'vision' for the best education and training system in the world, to drive us forward when the mining boom ends.
OK, what about his responses to Howard's attacks today? Pretty good, I reckon:
1. Rudd's ministry is 70 percent former union officials. Answer: 70 percent of Howard's Cabinet wanted him to resign.
2. Personnel instability: Answer: Who will be Treasurer and Foreign Affairs minister when Costello takes charge?
3. There'll be no checks and balances if Rudd wins because all Australian governments will be Labor. Rudd won't be able to do the blame game, the buckpassing stunt; he'll have to deliver or else. And the big check and balance is the Senate, which Howard used to get through WorkChoices when the people gave him the Senate numbers last time.
3. Howard will bring unemployment below 4 percent, Labor will increase unemployment: Remember his bold promise last time to keep interest rates at record lows. And where's his plan?
4. Rudd won't take responsibility, a la McLelland on capital punishment. Remember Iraq, where Howard won't take responsbility for increasing the terror threat by invading Iraq, remember him washing his hands of the AWB scandal, remember him casting off blame for the children overboard lie.
In my opinion, Kevin is off to a great start.
 |
 |
 |
| © 2006 - 2008, Webdiary Pty Ltd |
| Disclaimer: | This site is home to many debates, and the views expressed on this site are not necessarily those of Webdiary Pty Ltd. 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. |
Religion and Politics
Phillip Adams in The Australian,
Let us hope that the Christianity practised by Kevin Rudd is more about helping the poor and the sick, and less about taking from the poor to give to the rich.
Religion
I too hope that Kevin Rudd's Christianity means helping the excluded.
Mind you, this didn't seem to include the Aboriginals during his time with Goss!
Alan...
This might come as a shock to you but most people in the world do care that 1 million Iraqis have been slaughtered due to an illegal invasion and I don't know why you claim that the Pakistanis are beloved to me, I don't know any. However, they are human beings just like you and me and I don't wish them any harm.
It's funny that Mushareff is one of the world's greatest supporters of militant islam though and we consider him to be our buddy while the people of Pakistan are starving and selling organs to feed their families.
Over 80,000 Pakistanis were killed in that big earthquake and I did notice most Australians demanding that we help them, most Australian's certainly want to help the Afghanis to cope and the Iraqis.
Australian's make up 0.03% of the world's population so we ain't that important.
As for the unions - the liberal, labor, national, democrats and greens are unions and if you are not a member you cannot be a candidate for their parties in parliament.
This union bashing is ridiculous and juvenile. You are talking about Australian citizens who have spent the last 200 years fighting for the rights of other Australians when governments and bosses seek to take away those rights.
But Alan if you want to work in a dangerous company environment for 52 weeks a year for the rest of your life you go right ahead, but most people think that being $106 a week worse off and working longer hours is not a good deal.
Geography
Mary j Shepherd, respecting your comments as I usually do, the sad stupidity, and reality behind this one is that "most people" i.e. the majority of the world's population - peasants in India, China etc etc, don't even know where Iraq is. I doubt sincerely that "most people" here care.
I was debating Bob McMullen (who sounds SO reasonable) the other night and reflecting that he was one of the bastards who in the 60s and 70s was criticising ordinary Australians for doing what millions had done before them and will continue to do so: fighting a war that some politicians thought expedient at the time.
I was wearing the Australian Defence Medal.
Hockey one, Hockey two, Hockey 1.8 million
20% of the workforce is a significant figure (as of August last year, according to the ABS). Any Federal politician who seeks to alienate 20% of the workforce, amounting to 1.8 million people, is incompetent. I was not aware that the government was so far in front that it could be so nonchalant about 1.8 million Australians. Some of these people will be hardened ALP supporters but they won't all be, you can bet your life on it.
Strangely the only one who seems to have a balanced view of unionism is Tony Abbott. His discussion of his prior union activity shows signs of the leadership potential he has so comprehensively squandered throughout his life. Hockey is personable but he never says anything and he has no insight. He is a prop.
There is nothing wrong with being a weather man and it does not preclude a sincere interest and competence in political life. Weather is an important political issue in this election and if you missed that you missed everything - drought, water shortages, climate change, environmental degradation.
9,250 extra nurses under the Labor Government.
The fresh ideas continue too roll out from the Rudd Labor team.
With a chronic shortage of nurses under Howard mismanagement is good to see the vision of the Labor party breathing fresh air into our health system, we need more hospital beds and more nurses to man them. This is good step in the right direction.
What you are talking about is trivia
The budget take of income tax is over $120 billion per year, all this tinkering is about how it is paid and by whom. The other few dollars don't matter a toss but it is interesting that Howard has no ideas and answer us this.
As Howard is the one who has broken all the services in the first place over the last 12 years what on earth is he supposed to do to fix it?
Trivia
Mary j Shepherd, it seems that everybody who disagrees with you is an imbecile. Well, I have got news for you: nobody is interested in your ranting. 95% of Australians do not give a fig about the Pakistanis or Iraqis who seem to spend their time blowing each other up and blaming everybody else for the mess they are in.
If you were really interested in the welfare of Australians instead of your beloved Pakistanis, you would be demonstrating outside the offices of Iemma and Reba Meagher complaining about the way the health system is treating people.
On tonight's news there was a story about a little baby who died because of the incompetence of the staff at a hospital here in Sydney. Do we hear anything from you regarding the incompetence of Labor? No – instead you prattle on about "concentration camps" and "memorials".
If you think Rudd and his incompetent bunch are going to lift you out of the hole that you have dug for yourself, you are in for a shock.
David, still the same, I see
So you were a child back in the horrible years of Howard/Fraser were you? I was a single mother with a 4 year old in 1977 dear so do not dare to lecture me about age and other shit. We have had this conversation.
As for the unions - which ones. The BCA, the AMA, the CCI, or the ACTU? Which ones are defunct, dear David?
Without the unions they would still be using asbestos, and people would die without a trace of compensation while James Hardie got richer and richer in Holland.
Sure, 20% of workers are the only ones in unions but many millions more would like to be, it is Howard and Costello and morons like Shrek who have outlawed them and would kill them right off if given a chance.
Hitler and Stalin thought unions were obsolete too, you know, and look what lovely chaps they were?
Now if it came to the crunch and I was in trouble I would want Greg Combet on my side and not Richard bloody Pratt or the AWB or that creep Peter Hendy at the chamber of commerce, or the likes of Alan Bond, Christopher Skase, Tristar or the bosses of MacArthur trucking who racked off and left 700 workers in the lurch.
You see, David, as usual your mind is in your wallet and stuff everyone else.
That cretin Abbott said that the CWA and RSL were dead and done too, do you agree with that?
And if you think 1977 was horrible with Fraser as PM what on earth do you find likeable about the Howard years of smashing minority groups for political gain, lies about illegal wars, destroying little kids in concentration camps and even shafting people he calls friends because he is only interested in Howard?
With a 16 year old and 7 year old grand-daughter I can assure you I am living in 2007 and not in the nirvana of 1977.
Imbecilic
Mary j Shepherd, "Sure, 20% of workers are the only ones in unions but many millions more would like to be, it is Howard and Costello and morons like Shrek who have outlawed them and would kill them right off if given a chance".
Which unions have been outlawed?.
If unions are so good I would have thought people would be jumping out of the trees to join, but that's not the case is it. Even Combet and Shorten have left the ship like rats; they can see that the end is in sight.
Q. Why aren't there any union officials on Star Trek?
A. Because they're not going to work in the future either.
Fiona: OK, deep breath everyone, and enough of the epithets. For myself, I think that the current relevance of unions is an interesting one, and worth debating without resorting to sledging. Webdiary is not the Oz cricket team, after all...
Deep breath
Fiona, as well as taking a deep breath, could we start calling people by their proper names. Using terms like "Shrek" just shows what small minds some people have. Or perhaps you could put together a list of nicknames for all the pollies, and we all have to use them.
Fiona: Alan, I agree with you in essence. Not that I can guarantee that the WD editors will remember all of the time, but we will do our best. Perhaps more importantly, let's just lay off abusing other 'Diarists - at least, directly....
Epithets
SWMBO's students are taught to refer to me as "Fat and Rude". They do, particularly on the end of year thank-you cards and the presents. I cope - especially when they send champagne.
An Epithetical Education?
They have to be "taught" to describe you thus? You surprise me, Dr Duncan. However, since I find you generally veracious, pray enlighten us: who does the teaching?
Now we're getting snooty
SWMBO teaches them of course - most of them I have never met. It's a bit like life really: we don't have to be intimately acquainted for everyone to know me.
Five Vals, thanks
Rudd's plan to equip families with the tools to explore the web is inherently dangerous, and clearly a plot by communist-unionists. For instance, despite John Howard and his puppeteer, Alexander Downer, proving that the bombings in Karachi were the work of al-Quaeda, Ms Bhutto has another explanation for the apparent attempt on her life. We expect nothing more than simple, black and white conclusions from our leaders. We cannot be expected to read for ourselves and those who want to confuse minds by offering alternative explanations should be exposed as threats to the natural order and underminers of the GWOT.
Meanwhile, I am adjusting my level of medication so I can survive the next five weeks of "POLL SHOCK - LIBS CLAW BACK THREE POINTS!!!" From tomorrow, it will be 5 Valium a day. That should ensure a suitable state of blissful forgetfulness.
Garrett's copy-cat proposal (Labor offers rainwater tank scheme for surf clubs) will fail to neutralise what we really need - more CCTV in the streets (Howard pledges $500,000 to monitor hoons) to keep us safe from surfers and rampaging gangs of Africans.
Mary J misguided
Mary J, we have had an interesting dialogue over the years and once again, I feel you are misguided. Joe Hockey is essentially correct when he says that the role of unions is essentially over. Around 85% of private sector workers are not in unions. They have no particular meaning to the vast majority of us. Once again, I respectfully and even kindly request that you stop living in the past.
Modern Australia does not have much in common with the dysfunctional Australia of the past that you often look upon with misguided nostalgia. Strikes today are at the lowest levels since 1913. Unemployment is at a 30 year low. Incomes are up at every level. The United Nations Development Program rates Australia as third in the world for Human Development (a measure of life expectancy, literacy, education and standard of living). The only two countries ahead of us are Iceland and Norway.
You can bleat about the sky falling in but Australia in 2007 is a great place to be and it has only been strengthened by our federal government. Clearly they don't get everything right but the record and the result speaks for itself.
It would be a rare day indeed that I disagree with anything Joe Hockey says. This is 2007, not 1977. Like Joe, I was a kid in 1977. I don't care about that horrible Australia back then.
I will probably assist Joe Hockey in some way during his campaign because I care what happens in my home electorate of North Sydney. I don't want a leftie ABC weatherman sending us to hell in a handbasket. I know you don't live near here but perhaps you could reconsider your stance and help Joe Hockey's campaign. The least you could do is provide some moral support.
Keep the left and the various members of the ABC junta out of the North Shore.
Don't be an old stick in the mud, Mary J. Come join the fun! Come join 2007!
Digital divide
The immediate beneficiaries to building communication infrastructure will be corporate interests, because it will open up avenues for marketing. The internet has great radical potential but its primary effect is to consolidate pre-existing power structures (See Patelis The political economy of the internet). Rather than simply deferring tax cuts to buld such infrastructure, as Rudd suggests, we should hold an inquiry in to who the major economic beneficiaries will be and then implement specific taxes on those companies.
In 1979 the Fraser government committed to build satellite technology with public money to correct inequalities in television access (See Paul Barry, The rise and rise of Kerry Packer). Whilst this is was a positive for rural interests, it was the big media players that benefitted the most by the increase in audience reach. I think this was wrong. It was right that the satellite be built but it should have been paid for by the private interests who stood to benefit.
The public value element of internet access is first of all a consumerist one. This is a real benefit but it is unequal to that gained by the ones hocking their wares. The public at large should not have to foot the bill for the opportunity to be consumers.
Tax
Hi, Alan. Do you mean tax policy is largely a con? I couldn't disagree.
What is the difference between L.A.W. law tax cuts and non-core promise? Only the party promoting them.
As for real tax reform. How about winding back compulsory funding of private investment (superannuation) and putting it into a future fund? I'd love to be in an industry where it is against the law to not pay this industry. This is corporate welfare with a very great vengeance: supported by both parties.
Most of the tax policy is legislated
The coalition didn't put in place any reform, they tinkered around the edges and the rates for next year have already been legislated. Tax is not big on the horizon and Alan C you are whining about Sharan Burrow but the BCA have given Rudd's policy their approval.
Remember them, there are more white collar rich blokes in courts and jails than union "bosses" as far as we all know.
Now for this absurd tax story this week. Our taxes currently make up 25.4% of GDP or over $250 billion a year most of which is spent on defence (buying dodgy equipment and attacking other nations), hospitals which Howard has cut by 10%, schools which Howard distributes 30% to the 70% of public schools and 70% to 30% of private students. Now that is fair, NOT.
It is Howard who cut education funding to unis, to TAFES and is now spending $600 million on skills schools that have not had a single graduate and only 1800 people enrolled in the last 3 years.
It is Howard who sold Telstra so our rates rose by over 300% for line rental, we have the 5th slowest broadband of the top 30 nations, and Howard's plan was to pay Singapore for fourth-rate services.
Rudd has never been in a union and your whining about unions is juvenile delinquency at its worst. Hockey says unions are dead - well so did Hitler and Stalin. Abbott says they are as useless as the CWA and RSL - except those two groups are the salt of the earth and the heart of our nation. Howard says unions have their place.
Hey presto, the stupid ads are gone.
Now get back to us when you want to talk sense.
By the way, the government just rammed through super changes that allow millionaires to claim seniors benefits while they have cut payments to aborigines and withheld $3.5 billion in aboriginal funding.
Now grow up to paraphrase our not very esteemed PM.
Tax Policy
Tax
Evan Hadkins: "Families would claim the refund when they lodged their annual tax return. The first round of refunds would not be paid until the second half of 2009 for spending on children's education costs in the 2008-09 financial year".
I wonder how many people read this bit.
"The Labor leader, Kevin Rudd, said he would move immediately to start cutting the queue of about 25,000 patients throughout the country who have waited longer than clinically recommended for surgery such as hip replacements".
Do you remember when Bob Carr promised to halve the waiting lists or resign? Now Rudd is pulling the same con-job.
Tax policy
Labor's Tax plan in detail
a Tax Plan for
A Rudd Labor Government will reform Australia’s tax system and introduce a 50% Education Tax Refund for working families supporting their children’s education.
This $2.3 billion Education Tax Refund builds on Labor’s Education Revolution - a core part of Labor’s strategy to drive Australia’s long-term economic prosperity.
Labor’s plan includes the goal over 6 years, by 2013-14, of flattening Australia’s income tax system by reducing the number of personal income tax rates from four to three – with a personal income tax scale of 15 per cent, 30 per cent and 40 per cent.
This plan will deliver assistance to working families under financial pressure and help prepare Australia for its future economic challenges.
This is a course of action for Australia’s long-term national interest – rather than a short term political decision by a government that has had 11 and a half years to fundamentally reform the tax system.
Labor’s tax plan is designed to maximise individual incentive, enhance workforce participation, improve our international tax competitiveness and invest in Australia’s future.
Under our plan:
Labor confirms its decision in May 2007 to support the tax cuts outlined in the 2007-08 Budget.
Labor will provide tax cuts of equal value to those proposed by the government for individuals earning up to $180,000 per year. This is set out in the attached tables.
Labor will defer the Government’s proposed tax cuts for those individuals earning more than $180,000 per year - saving around $3 billion over the Forward Estimates.
Labor will direct $2.3 billion of this amount to an Education Tax Refund for all families receiving Family Tax Benefit A with children at school. This will benefit the education of around 2.3 million Australian school children.
Labor has a goal for a tax system with the explicit objective of maximising incentive in the future economy.
Labor has a goal over six years, by 2013-14, of flattening Australia’s income tax system by reducing the number of personal income tax rates from four to three – with a personal income tax scale of 15 per cent, 30 per cent and 40 per cent.
Labor will also direct a further $400 million to build on Labor’s National Health and Hospitals Reform Plan.
This money will be used to negotiate an agreement with the states and territories on a specific timetable for the significant reduction of elective surgery waiting lists.
The objective of this agreement will be to reduce to zero the number of people who wait for procedures for longer than the clinically recommended time.
The remaining $200 million will be retained in the budget surplus.
Labor’s Tax Plan for Australia’s Future is mindful of inflationary pressures in the economy; responsibly commits to a goal for tax reform that will boost productivity and workforce participation; targets investment in education and health to build future economic growth; and returns a further $200 million to the budget surplus.
Investing in the Education of our Children
A Rudd Labor Government will invest $2.3 billion in financial support for working families to help meet the growing costs of educating their children.
Federal Labor will provide a new 50% Education Tax Refund to help families of around 2.3 million school-age children meet the costs of education.
Under Labor’s Education Tax Refund, eligible parents will be able to claim:
A 50 per cent refund every year for up to $750 of education expenses for each child attending primary school (maximum $375 per child, per year).
A 50 per cent refund every year for up to $1,500 of education expenses for each child attending secondary school (maximum $750 per child, per year).
Therefore a typical family with a primary school aged child and a secondary school aged child would receive a tax refund of up to $1,125 per year.
All families who receive Family Tax Benefit (Part A) will be eligible for Labor’s new 50 per cent tax refund for education expenses. Families would submit their application for this refund as part of their annual tax return.
Eligible items will include laptops, home computers, printers, home internet connection, education software and school text books.
This measure is designed, together with other measures in Labor’s Education Revolution, to lift school retention rates long-term – where Labor’s target is to increase year 12 equivalent retention to 90 per cent by 2020.
According to research by the OECD, the growth rate of the economy would be up to 1 per cent higher if the average education level of the working-age population was increased by one year.
A tax cut for all Australian taxpayers by July 2008
Labor’s tax plan will build a stronger foundation for Australia’s future economic growth while delivering for working families
Labor will deliver tax cuts for all taxpayers from 1 July 2008. These tax cuts are part of a broader plan to reform the Australian taxation system.
Labor’s tax plan will provide tax cuts of equal value to those announced by the Howard Government for people earning up to $180,000.
Under Labor’s plan, for taxpayers earning over $180,000, the reduction in the top tax rate from 45 per cent will be deferred and form part of Labor’s six year goal to flatten the tax system.
Labor’s six year goal to reform Australia’s tax system
Australia needs a clear destination point for the future of its tax system – not just the incremental adjustment to thresholds which the current government has specialised in either at budget time or election time.
Real tax reform lies in flattening the system by reducing the number of rates and reducing rates themselves.
Labor’s Tax Plan for Australia’s Future sets a goal over six years, by 2013-14, for a personal income tax system with the following features:
A reduction to three rates from the current four.
A reduction of the current 45 per cent rate to 40 per cent.
A reduction of the current 40 per cent rate (which by 2010-11 would have been reduced to 37 per cent) to 30 per cent.
Consistent with the Government’s plan, the effective tax free threshold would increase from $11,000 to $16,000 through an increase in the Low Income Tax Offset by 2010-11 and then increase to $20,000 through an increase in the Low Income Tax Offset by 2012-13. Labor will adjust the Senior Australians Tax Offset (SATO) in line with the adjustments outlined by the Government.
Under Labor’s Tax Plan for Australia’s Future, reductions in the fringe benefits tax (FBT) will reflect reductions in the top marginal tax rate.
Middle-income earners would be the major beneficiaries of Labor’s six year tax goal – with only a 30 per cent marginal tax rate applying over the full income range from $37,000 to $180,000.
Achieving this six year goal will depend on national and international economic conditions and maintaining, as a general economic principle, budget surpluses of around 1 per cent of GDP.
Cutting waiting lists in our public hospitals
Labor will direct a further $400 million to build on Labor’s National Health and Hospitals Reform Plan in order to establish a $600 million Elective Surgery Waiting List Reduction Plan.
This $600 million Elective Surgery Waiting List Reduction Plan will enable the Commonwealth to drive down elective surgery waiting lists across Australia.
Labor will negotiate an agreement with the states and territories on a specific timetable for the reduction of elective surgery waiting lists and hold the states accountable.
Labor’s objective is to reduce the number of people who wait longer than the clinically recommended time for elective surgery in critical categories.
Labor will:
Invest $100 million in 2008 to conduct an immediate national blitz on elective surgery waiting lists – to help clear the backlog of people who have been waiting longer than the clinically recommended time for elective surgery such as hip replacements.
Invest $200 million over two years to make systemic improvements to Australia’s hospital system to improve elective surgery throughput in the long-term, including the construction of additional day surgery clinics.
Invest up to $300 million in dividend payments to those States and Territories that meet elective surgery waiting list reduction targets within the clinically recommended time by the end of Labor’s four year plan.
Fiscal responsibility
Federal Labor’s Tax Plan for Australia’s Future is underpinned by an economically conservative approach.
This proposal is mindful of inflationary pressures in the economy.
It responsibly commits to a goal for tax reform that will boost productivity.
It targets investment in education and health to build future economic growth, productivity and workforce participation.
And it returns a further $200 million to the budget surplus.
Fresh Ideas and now a new three tier tax plan
Labor's tax policy is a breath of fresh air. Kevin Rudd and Wayne Swan have just announced their new tax plan – a complete overhaul of the tax system.
The new plan has three core changes.
1. A fifty percent tax refund for parents with school aged children, for spending on books, internet connection and computers upto $750 for primary school and $1,500 for secondary school. For a family with two children at high school this could be a tax refund of $1,500 per year.
2. A six year plan to flatten the tax rates by 2013, with levels at a top level of forty percent then thirty percent and finally a fifteen percent rate. This is a real incentive to middle income earners with the forty percent rate likely to cut in at above $180,000.
3. The savings made by the introduction of the Rudd/Swan tax reform would be spent on a National Health Reform Plan to cut surgical waiting lists for surgery such as hip and knee replacement.
The Labor tax plan is about supporting families not the rich. It shows up the throwaway tax cuts promised by Howard and Costello as completely lacking in vision.
Conned again
John Pratt, you have been conned again by the smooth talking Rudd: he has copied the Libs again but with one big IF.
He says "it is conditional on national and international economic circumstances...".
Of course we know what that means: when Labor takes us into deficit there will be no tax cuts. I would have thought that all parents who got a tax cut would spend it on their kids' education.
Come on Rudd, do a Kennett 2007 style
Rudd has to get this right. He has to take Howard on about his big con of the Australian people. Money in, but more out on services they used to get from government reliably and well. Me too on tax is bad politics, Kevin. Come on, have a go!
Tax money better spent on education, health: Kennett:
The Coalition's $34 billion tax package may have been well received by many Australians, but one prominent Liberal says he would have spent the budget surplus differently.
Former Victorian premier Jeff Kennett says the money used to fund the tax cuts could have been spent on big picture promises in the areas of health, education and water.
"While the public will appreciate money in the pocket, my personal concern is that we have some underlying issues here in this country about preparing us for the future," he said.
"By that I mean quality teachers for education to educate the children of the future, our work force.
"Secondly, being able to put in place attractive packages to attract people both professionals and non-professional people to our health system.
"I would very much like to see some of the very large surplus be devoted to those areas as well as I have continually and consistently argued for the development of a national water plan."
Pablo, eh
Pablo, eh? I remember Pablo from my youth. Picture of the Brazilian or Mexican under the sombrero, on the bottle.
Foul, dry dusty stuff the colour, smell and (probable) taste of cat shit.
Black and Gold and Home Brand are contemporary strains mined from the same vein or ore-body.
On the thread, watching Hockey on the news tonight this writer's immediate response was, "as long as people like you are around, people will need unions". I think Anthony Nolan put it succinctly elsewhere, when he described the wilful conflation of factions with unions. It comes down to "unions" sounding more bolshie than "NSW right" and they've precious little else to run with so even this nonsense is worth a crack, given the current dire straits.
But apparently it has had a minimal impact as to latest op polls, so bears out my original contention that one never overestimates the intelligence of the Australian people.
Those Fearsome Unions
One Dom Night, in analysing in advance why Kevin didn't win, has the Australian shoeple pretty well figured out, as follows:
"…where voters had initially been frightened that WorkChoices would make them lose their jobs, the Coalition's advertising convinced them that groups of workers voluntarily coming together to demand a certain level of minimum conditions was a far more terrifying prospect."
Unions
absolutely...
Evan,
Heartbreakingly, some unions are so far to the right that they seem irretrievable. The Tasmanian branch of the CFMEU, for example, which campaigned against Labour in the last federal election and refused Latham's offer of what...$800m if I recall correctly...and I think that the reason was a matter of gender identity...you know, real men have outdoors jobs chopping down trees! One would have thought that Latham had offered Tasmanian Labour gender reassignment surgery such was the vehemance of their response.
And this despite clear evidence that woodchipping had torn apart the Tasmanian sawmilling industry where many of their members had previously been employed. And, please note, the CFMEU is, in theory at least, a left union. What did they think...that they were all going to end up serving tea and scones to mainlanders? There was a time when I was sympathetic to the claims of the labor movement when it came to the matter of jobs.v. the environment but currently, given performances like that in Tasmania, I have none. The rate of deforestation means that they won't have jobs in the future anyway so it may as well be sooner as later so far as I am now concerned.
Anthony
Australians now in danger will be home if Labor wins
An Australian soldier was seriously wounded in Iraq yesterday. We can all hope that Labor wins the election and brings these brave young men home. We want no more Australians killed or wounded in a war without end in Iraq. For the sake of our young soldiers we must vote Labor.
All those big bad unionists
These are the union thugs the Liberal party machine would have us be terrified of, all those lawyers and economists won't have a clue will they? Unlike the lawyers and economists on the Liberal side.
Howard loved the CFMEU at the last election so has he decided to turn against them now while Costello whinges that union members might actually work for pay rises for the workers instead of stripping an average of $106 a week through AWA's? Perhaps he would prefer that Greg Combet simply let the James Hardie victims die without their compensation and perhaps he has forgotten that political parties are unions and if you are not a member you cannot stand for parliament.
Perhaps he thinks that silly ranting about Gillard being a communist will scare us all to death instead of making himself look like a total dill.
Unionists
Mary j Shepherd, have a look at this.
Now here is something very sobering to consider. in Australia's presidential-style politics, all the emphasis is on the leader.... Kevin Rudd, perhaps you should consider who would sit around a Rudd Cabinet table!!!
A cross-section of the Australian electorate… I don't think so!!!
Fear and fear itself
Frightening isn't it Mary j Shepherd? That shadow Minister list has been doing the rounds of the conservative lunch circuit at least in Wentworth for a couple of months now and it's been frightening the socks off us all. Simon Crean for goodness sakes. At least Beazley knows when his time is up and I know for whom I am voting. We have the best candidate I can think of in Wentworth.
Mr Curren, you forget. As the world well knows I am a trained killer (I'm even wearing the medal throughout the campaign).
My Terrible Confession!
Folks, it is beholden on me (in spite of knowing that Lord Malcolm is a trained killer) to admit that I was once a member of a union! It was a Teacher's Union of all things. Ouch, shriek, @#%!
Please find it within your hearts to forgive me. Blame my youth, my immaturity, my political naivety, the failure of my father to inculcate me with altruistic liberal values, the wrong alignment of the stars, whatever.
Will Webdiary please set up a special B-list site for those of us who, unfortunately, have been a member of a contaminating Union? We could be called 'The Untouchables' or 'Les Miserables' and treated with the contempt we deserve!
I await your advice.
Appelations
Based on previous stoushes I don't ordinarily reply to Daniel Smythe but I think the Lord Malcolm jibe deserves a bit of history. Being a chalkie he might be familiar with this from the staff room. When I was in the Army, driving a desk at the recruiting centre, we all used to put in for tea and coffee and everybody had his individual mug. The tea fund used to buy cheap (I think the coffee muck was called Pablo - little better than coloured sawdust in my view) so I had my own coffee jar with Nescafe gold in it. To keep the others away it was individually labelled with dymo tape (remember dymos anyone?). I had just graduated and I think I was the only Corporal in the Australian Army with an Honours degree in English Literatrure at that juncture. The label read: Cpl Lord Duncan DPhil. LL.D. In the same vein, when Sgt Michael Albert Griffin (now Col Griffin last seen as counsel assisting the Kovco inquiry) started his Arts degree he became known as M.A. Griffin M.A.
Ah, for the old days when there was still some piss to take.
On the Union front, Unions are essential and we are just going through a natural swing of the pendulum. Your guild will be strong again Mr Smythe just wait. There are always more Cathedrals to be built.
I am pleased to announce the outline of my industrial relations policy: all bosses are bastards and you can't trust the Unions so let's just use the Conciliation and Arbitration power entrenched in the Constitution and legislate to reverse the High Court's decision in Combet.
All Bosses Are Bastards?
Lord Duncan, DPhil. LL.D. a friendly warning: I'm afraid the above statement about bosses from your somewhat brief industrial relations policy will not please our John. He has spent the last eleven years groveling to and giving bosses more and more power and making them infinitely richer while simultaneously trying to destroy unions and take away worker's rights. Expect an unfriendly visit from the Tax Office shortly and please watch what you say on the phone!
You also state that "You can't trust Unions." Though that will certainly please John, is that not a rather sweeping statement? I mean there were unions that did contain some unworthy, thuggish types (Builder's Labours, Waterside Workers, etc) but not all unions operated that way. And, of course, keep in mind that unions only came into existence in the first place because of the rampant, instinctive greed of entrepreneurs which will endure forever. Who can forget their sending of women and children down the mines?
By attacking both bosses and workers you would appear to be alienating yourself from all those who might vote for you. Is this a wise tactic, perhaps a flanking move?
It's obvious that you need a campaign manager. For a fee, I'll make myself available!
But at morning coffee, what will I have to call you? M'Lud?
A conciliatory gesture?
Mr Smythe, as my dear old Dad once said to a junior officer who had been his CUO at school and was slagging Dad's troops off in the Mess, "Let's not be formal, just call me Sir."
I certainly do need a campaign manager. Zinc on the corner of Rockwall Crescent and Macleay Street does good coffee.
To explain the mantra, when I worked as a young solicitor our firm acted for the Meat and Allied Trades Federation, the State and Federal Employers' Federation. The Union was (pre-Mudginbury) the most cashed up, litigious Union in the Country and there was hell and high water most of the time. One of the problems was that we could never get the employers to take a long term view and crush the Union (which Mudginbury did but Pendarvis went broke in the process). Whenever there was a strike at abbatoir A and we sacked or stood down the workers, instead of joining in to make it a notifiable dispute (you need to know some law about that - it's a jurisdictional question) the neighbouring abbatoir owner would just ring the local cockies and say he was still open. By the same token, the Union didn't really exist to preserve workers' rights, it existed to preserve union officials' entitlements. The whole thing was even more complicated because whenever a vacancy appeared on the Bench, the government of the day (of whatever complexion) would appoint a mate.
So, it's partly tongue in cheek but not entirely. We need employers and we need workers and we need Unions to protect the workers because (bar a few notable examples where the workers are shareholders and have a direct pecuniary interest in seeing that the bosses make a quid - and there have been a few over the years - Fletcher Jones springs to mind) the two groups are natural enemies.
While I'm on the subject, I think defining unemployment as working an hour a week is a disgrace, unacceptable and totally Unaustralian (even in the Howard definition). The real problem is that the policy Rudd has enunciated so far (to the extent he has) merely takes us back to the contractual position that existed pre 19th Century - not good enough even with silly bits of legislation like the Trade Practices Act. The Conciliation and Arbitration power was put there for a very deliberate and real reason and Combet (the case) has to go.
Your Gesture Appreciated!
While I, a mere chalkie (and a few other things) would not aspire to be your campaign manager I certainly would give you a hand if I were ten years younger and I didn't live in Jenny's neck of the wood in the drought-ridden Central Tablelands.
Thanks for the offer to have coffee with you, Malcolm, and allow me to wish you well in your political endeavors.
Cheers!
oh really?
I am always amazed at the lack of historical knowledge displayed by some people. Sure, most ALP parliamentarians have held union positions BUT if you examine which unions and know a little about Labor history you will find a predominance of Unions associated with the Groupers and elements of the (now thankfully defunct) DLP. The S.D.A a radical force? The Federated Clerks a hotbed of seething socialism? You've gotta be kidding, right? The Misso's raising the red flag in Canberra? Dream on!
The problem with the ALP is not the presence of union organisers at a parliamentary level but the dominance of boneheads from the Labour right.
On which point...given that teachers and nurses have maintained some of the highest levels of union membership of any industry sector ... where is their influence in the ALP? And for any members of the NSW Nurses Association reading here...those effective advertisements you are paying for ... where is your political influence within the ALP, your clout as it were, that you might reasonably expect to have for your dollar?
Don't hold your breath! You don't and won't have any because the Right Labor factions have got it all sewn up.
Nevertheless I'd rather have a government of unionists than the seepage from the HR Nicholls society. Remember Reith and his spooks? At least with Labour we have a chance, a small chance, to influence outcomes which is a helluva lot more than with Howard's Hobbesian turkeys.
Most Australians have been part of a union
Alan, it may surprise you, but I think if you did a survey most Australians have either been a member of a union, support unions or have benefited from the action of unions.
Thanks for letting us know that we can rest assured that the union movement is willing to help overthrow the Howard government.
That is the Howard Government that has attacked workers' rights and increased our cost of living so most of us can barely put food on the table.
With God on His Side
Good Thinking PF. Let's Hope Kevin is Hard to Get.
I also agree with Richard - I don't think many people could stand another Howard free to air T/V performance.
Especially when he is the only performer. 15 minutes is a lot, Richard.
I think it clearly shows that Howard....:
You only have to watch him when he doesn't have his "Speaker" there to turn off the other person's microphone.
Like his trained monkeys, he interrupts, flails his arms and raises his voice to shout-down these impudent underlings.
By the way - "How does Howard get away with..." claiming that the lowest paid workers are each on about $50,000 or more per annum.
Let's keep our eyes on the ball.
NE OUBLIE.
Howard Should Debate God!
All this fuss about a single debate with Kevin! Why does John waste his time with underlings like Rudd or Costello? Why doesn't he debate God, really give the gullible public something to gape at?
Of course, God may choose not to debate someone who is both a lawyer and a politician. Can't say I blame Him, of course.
Even Satan isn't that bad!
micromanaging control-freak
Daniel, beneath that bombastic exterior Howard is insecure - his decade in power has been characterised by an obsessive need to manage others lives in the most intimate fashion. The Aboriginal intervention and Dr. Haneef are interesting not as exceptions to, but examples of, the rule.
He is deep down too cowardly to afford a debate on fair terms - he might "lose".
A whole nation is captive to one fellow's insecurites.
Ready to debate anytime, as long as it's when he wants
Ernest, not so long ago Kevin Rudd was talking about debating John Howard anytime. Now the offer of a debate has come up and he is being a little coy about it because he wants the debate under the parameters he wants. So really he isn't all that different to Howard is he?
With regards to behaviour in Parliament, have you ever noticed that when someone from the Goverment asks Kevin Rudd a question he turns his back on them?
But I have a feeling that would be ok with you because it demonstrates his contempt for the Howard "New Order", but it is scarcely civil, is it?
Speaking of questions, I am sure you will find this article from the SMH to be rather amusing.
Interesting Opinion Craig.
G'day Craig, To be honest I am surprised at your contention that Kevin Rudd doesn't answer questions and has the temerity to ask for a level playing field on which to debate.
In 1998, 2001 and 2004 Howard "debated" each Labor Party leader and failed miserably, even though he progressively demanded more control. He cannot debate unless he has the power to silence opposition. That of course, is not a debate.
The parliamentary Question times have been changed so much by Howard that they are really only an example of his unaccountable power.
The intent of Question Time was always for the opposition parties to ask questions of the incumbent government in the Westminster fashion. This was to show the "other" voters that they were, in fact, represented in a democratic parliament.
Howard changed that to an Abbott and Costello "one for you - one for me" - which created the not so amusing "Dorothy Dix" questions and thereby halved those available to the opposition parties.
He removed the opposition party's right to have a supplementary question which was the right to challenge the answer if it was unsatisfactory or avoided.
His Speaker has "never ever" accepted a point of order from the Australian Labor Party.
He has introduced the "gag" more than any other government - his Speaker removes Labor MP's for the most miniscule excuse, while allowing people like Abbott and Costello to use language [under parliamentary privilege] for which they could be sued outside.
So Craig, if you were Kevin Rudd and you were prepared to have three debates on the major issues and, realising Howard's penchant for autocratic control - would you really meekly submit to his most recent abuse of privilege? Really?
You are correct in saying that Kevin Rudd was prepared to "debate" Howard any time but, would Howard's recent "offer" really be a debate?
Which is - at his time; his venue; his mediator; his audience; his removal of the measure of public scrutiny (the worm); his choice of subjects and his choice of media representatives? A debate?
On the second issue regarding Kevin Rudd's answer to questions, he is generally questioned when he is not prepared but, I have only heard him refuse once. During his answer to a question he was interrupted by a journalist and he asked him to "wait a minute". The swine.
Why is it Craig, that Howard's refusal to expose his policies in detail in 1996 was "clever" politics, but then, when Kevin Rudd's refusal is cowardice?
When you think about it Craig, Howard's famous "wedging" and "dividing" our people for purely political reasons should not be considered as "progressive" unless - the objective is "Power corrupts - absolute power corrupts absolutely".
Cheers Ern G.
Debate
Ernest William: "In 1998, 2001 and 2004 Howard "debated" each Labor Party leader and failed miserably".
Yes, you are quite right, but he did WIN the elections. I thought that is what counts in an election campaign. Howard will win again and Labor will hold an enquiry as to what went wrong. They are good at that sort of thing and they have had plenty of practice. It seems this is the only thing they are experienced in.
"the worm" is b.s.
"the worm" is bullshit. It distracts from what the politician is saying and likely leads some "sheeple" to opinions based solely on its trends rather than listen to what is actually being said. Political plants can cause 'the worm" to go this way or that.
Viewers should just hear the debaters' messages and not be distracted by "the worm" because when it comes right down to it, no thinking person could give a shit about what that tiny (and possibly planted) audience thinks.
Democracy
Margo’s comments to Philip Adams last night about insiders knowing nothing were perceptive. Insiders are really chasers – hence the comedy team’s name. Political commentators of any complexion amaze me with their lack of ability to think outside the square. Democratic politics is now in an open competition with other "democratic" forms more attractive and more potentially relevant to the consumer. Big Brother just finished its seventh season; Australian Idol is up to its fifth season, It Takes Two, Dancing With The Stars, are limbering up. Once or twice is fashion, this much vote power in the hands of those-at-home, is now an entrenched social ritual.
The power to decide via a vote is no longer unique to politics as a social behaviour. Politicians play a risky game attempting to corral for their own purposes, the post-modern, consumer driven media, obsessed as it is with rumour and spectacle. How are people able to really tell the difference? Don't researchers and theorists tell us, if it looks real it is? But the positive effect of these continuing reality TV vote-fests is to build a nuanced and discerning electorate who can read the subtext and the power games underlying all of these social experiments - which is what parliamentary democracy is anyway.