Protean, elusive, capable of great good and appalling evil, but mostly harmless
“Any goodwill [the Coalition] may have had from employees and trade unions will have been blown away by their desperate, divisive attempt to remain in office at all cost. If I were running a business I would be hoping Rudd and Gillard would be around to pick up the pieces.”
Labels: 2007 Federal Election, Paul Keating
posted by Jacob A. Stam at 11/13/2007 10:20:00 PM
Father Park at
13/11/07 11:29 PM Jacob A. Stam at
14/11/07 12:24 AM Caz at
14/11/07 9:42 PM Father Park at
14/11/07 11:11 PM Caz at
15/11/07 7:33 PM Jacob A. Stam at
15/11/07 8:01 PM
at
15/11/07 9:04 PM Jacob A. Stam at
15/11/07 10:19 PM Caz at
15/11/07 10:30 PM at
16/11/07 6:20 AM Jacob A. Stam at
16/11/07 8:18 AM Caz at
16/11/07 10:15 PM at
17/11/07 1:26 PM Caz at
17/11/07 1:50 PM at
18/11/07 12:12 AM
15 Comments:
On this point Keating is absolutely correct. The decentralisation of wage fixing was the Keating Labor government's legacy. Allied with the previous (Hawke) government's "Accord" (which actually saw "real" wages fall) it set the foundations for the growth the Coalition now claims sole credit for.
The ALP in this election propose nothing remotely approaching a return to "centralised wage fixing". That is a campaign of mis-information peddaled by an addled and aged government.
I use "mis-information" to avoid the Kevin Rudd of CC railing on about "hyperbole".
WorkChoices was concieved - first, last and foremost - as an ideological tool. As Prof Wooden has observed (thread below) Rio Tinto is using it to rid itself of unions.
This is very, very dear to John Howard's heart. It is what makes Costello's synapses fire.
Yes indeed, real wages fell under the Accord. There's the 'unions running rampant under Labor', eh?
Why is it that the 'Labor is run by the unions' card seems to hold such sway, while Howard, who has never held an honest, productive job in his life, is able to pass himself off as a paragon of the virtue of private enterprise?
Mister Middle Class Welfare himself, with his multi-billion dollar hand-outs?
Who claims that a Labor government will cause wages to rise, while holding out the carrot that with his WorkChoices wages will rise??
WHY ARE CERTAIN PEOPLE SUCH SUCKERS FOR THIS HUMBUG???
Oh dear, poor old Keating has lost the plot.
Wages are likely to go up under a Rudd ALP, which sounds nice for individuals (some), but will have far ranging and unpalatable repercussions for the economy and the collective social good.
Including, of course, interest rate rises, and rises, and rises.
Just as they absolutely will under a Howard Coalition government. They are now: I'm living it (I recruit people as a business).
Inflation up. Interest rates up. Wages up.
1+1+1 makes three.
Howard’s mantra about WorhChoices is a crock of shit. His deliberate lie of the ALP returning to “centralised wage fixing” is a confection to run alongside his “Union wreckers” gestalt. His bullshit about the ALP’s IR policy creating a “wages breakout” is simply that.
Desperate polls; desperate PM.
The ALP will not dismantle what it created.
A PM possessing the electoral appeal of a seeping septic tank throws billions into a bonfire and cries fiscal responsibility all the while titillating electile tissue and berating the opposition for not doing as much.
In large part he is followed by an opposition who can just feel their arses shining upon treasury benches.
God save us.
In fairness, and one must try to be fair at trying times, such as this: it's the economic analysts and commentators who are saying that there will be more upwards wages pressure under the ALP than currently being experienced.
Howard has simply parroted that thought.
Well, someone should do a study on precisely who said what and when. I'd love to, but a) I haven't got the time or energy, and b) my boredom threshold has been excessively taxed already.
What I would like an answer to is just how we ended up with such a wussy economy that can't 'handle' the effect of simple bloody market forces acting upon prices/wages.
The free marketeers of the Coalition Govt have legislated the labour market to buggery in order to try to make it work in the way they reckon it should. Then there's the ACCC policing prices like a bunch of Stalinist commissars.
All to make market capitalism fit some kind an orthodox ideal.
I shakes me head...
"Yes indeed, real wages fell under the Accord"
Very true Jacob, and probably one of the reasons for the current dismal levels of Union membership.
When the unions get together with the Government to stifle wage growth you have to wonder just whats going on dont you?
If you cast your mind back to the early - mid 90's you might remember a fair bit of talk about what exactly was in the relationship with the ALP for them.
Indeed, Craig. I think I also recall talk of a riddle wrapped inside a mystery inside an enigma.
Translated, I think this represented the unions being in Hawke's pocket, while Hawke was in the collective pocket of Peter Abeles and/or Lindsay Fox and/or Rupert and/or Kerry. Perhaps alternating between these and yet others.
Whatever, it didn't do Labor any good, with over 11 years in the wilderness now under their belt. And they could be going for 3-4 more.
"Whatever, it didn't do Labor any good, with over 11 years in the wilderness now under their belt. And they could be going for 3-4 more."
Are you sticking your goatee out and tipping a coalition win Jacob???!!!
I remember those images of Hawke being very cosy with people such as Abeles and (sshh!) Bond etc as Im sure you do. Then there was the piddling matter of that airline strike where Hawke went all gung ho to break it. A sort of Patricks without the balaclavas one could suggest.
Their actions at the time were very shortsighted and it seems to have done the unions a lot of damage. I know they have made a big deal of work choices but is there any conclusive data available to show this has translated into a serious (and sustained) rise in membership?
If there was some, I would have thought they would be flogging it for all its worth
They're flogging negative results from AWAs relative to those from collective agreements. I guess that's about their only selling point, Craig, which isn't too bad.
As for the election, Caz, as they might say in The Book: "All is confusion. The superior man will busy himself with incidental matters and shut the fuck up."
But if obliged to stick out my goatee, I'd tip maybe a repeat of '98 in the lower house, i.e., the Coalition will carry key marginals with a smidge under half the popular vote. The Senate result will be knife-edge, but the Coalition Government-elect will have to work hard again to get upper house support.
There, I've said it. I feel a strange sense of release.
Will the Govt be humbled by such a result? Hahahahahaahahahah!!!!
Having said all that, I'm wondering how the Auditor-G's report on the 'Regional Rorts' will play in the electorate during the remaining time up to the election.
Mary & John Q. Aggregate may well just shrug it off as an artefact of the devil they know.
With only one week to go, that's one brave goatee you're sticking out there Jacob.
I tend to regard the polling we've been seeing with suspicion. It's more likely to reflect how people like to think they might vote, before they actually have a chance think about things like naked self-interest in going for whatever pork-barreling and bribes are on offer.
If this view strikes anyone as cynical, then what does that make the pollies, esp. Mr Howard with his inflationary tax cuts and other sweeteners? Apparently these are 'core promises' too! (I believe him... don't you?)
I'm not alone, by the way, it's surprising how many professional pundits there are on tv/radio who just simply can't believe the polling.
Anyway, it's no secret that I won't be too disappointed if proven wrong. And I'm notoriously a bad tipster. But the history of the last several campaigns, from memory (which is far from perfect), leads me to that view.
I think there's a whole universe of difference between being gobsmacked about the size of the trend away from the government, and being deluded about it's reality. Generally called "being in denial".
On the day of the last election, pretty much all papers claimed it would be "close, close, close", with a tip to Latham, only just.
I thought they were lunatics and didn't believe for one second that Latham would win it - I'd reached that conclusion about half way through the campaign.
I sure didn't pick the Libs for picking up a raft of new seats though.
I think, for this election, we are definitely seeing a lot of lemming like behavior, that will likely carry through to the ballot box.
Just as Rudd has bored us to death with "me too-ism", the electorate is doing the same. Conversations probably run much like this:
- I hate Howard! Me too!
- I'm going to vote for Rudd! Me too!
- I have no objectively valid reasons for my views! Me too!
Baa, baa, baa, baa, baa, baa, baa.
Oh shit yeah, the thing is that the election campaign has just gone on for far too long.
By which I don't mean since when the election was actually called, oh no.
It began early this year when, not long after Rudd became opposition leader, he started fucking with the PM's mind.
Poor old John just hasn't been able to out-mindfuck Rudd, and it's destroying him.
I might even have felt sorry for the PM, if the long long campaign (both the 'phoney' and 'real' one) hadn't actually completely fucked my mind.
Er, and if he wasn't such an contemptible toad.
Post a Comment
<< Home