2007 Federal Election - Coalition or Labor/Howard or Rudd? (1 Viewer)

[frog12986]

Re: 2007 Federal Election - Coalition or Labor/Howard or Beazley?

I saw most of his speech to the press club.

Personally I want to see as many people employed as possible too. I believe in strong minimum conditions but WorkChoices doesnt include provisions i believe as essential in a fair industrial relations system.

The Liberals say that their IR reforms are key for a strong economy. However, as of last year only 2% of workers were employed on AWAs. Instead it was Paul Keatings reforms of 1993 (Industial Relations Act, enterprise bargaining) which have been far more beneficial for the economy and kept inflation low. The libs claim a Labor govt will have a system dominated by centralised wage fixing but it was the ALP who decentralised the industrial relations system.

The Workplace Relations Act furthered those reforms, as does Workchoices. The key issue at the heart of the workplace reform is that the face of the Australian economy is going to evolve immensely over the next 10-15 years, mainly in regards to supply.

Collective agreements, Awards and the like have their place, and any person who suggests that Workchoices is aiming to eliminate those options is geting caught up in the hysteria. The mistake people are making, is that they are applying the likely consequences of Worchoices to economic conditions that are going to be less and less relevant to an Australian context as the population ages. Comparing our situation to China, Europe or even the US, distorts the purpose of the reforms and their capacity to create a flexible and adaptive workplace system to the challenges AUSTRALIA will face in the future.

If and when, sometime in the next 50 years, Australia's economic conditions revert to conditions of the past, it would be the responsibility of the incumbent to implement reform as necessary. Here we have a government, doing just that; implementing medium-long term reform, and getting crucified by the Unions, as their role is set to diminish.

 

[ZabZu]

Re: 2007 Federal Election - Coalition or Labor/Howard or Beazley?

Collective agreements, Awards and the like have their place, and any person who suggests that Workchoices is aiming to eliminate those options is geting caught up in the hysteria. The mistake people are making, is that they are applying the likely consequences of Worchoices to economic conditions that are going to be less and less relevant to an Australian context as the population ages. Comparing our situation to China, Europe or even the US, distorts the purpose of the reforms and their capacity to create a flexible and adaptive workplace system to the challenges AUSTRALIA will face in the future.

WorkChoices gives employers a clear signal, your profits will be higher and there will be greater managerial perogative if you employ your workers on AWAs.

The number of people employed on the award is going to decrease significantly. The award is a centralised wage setting system which is inflexible and causes inflation. So getting rid of awards aint necessarily a bad thing. However, the number of enterprise bargaining agreements will decline. EBAs are great workplace agreements because they are decentralised, they allow conditions to be traded away and they allow employees to be represented by a union, giving them greater bargaining power.

Here we have a government, doing just that; implementing medium-long term reform, and getting crucified by the Unions, as their role is set to diminish.

Today only 1 in 5 workers are union members and in the mid 1980s half of all workers belonged to a union. Their role has been diminishing for the last 15 years.

 

[frog12986]

Re: 2007 Federal Election - Coalition or Labor/Howard or Beazley?

Today only 1 in 5 workers are union members and in the mid 1980s half of all workers belonged to a union. Their role has been diminishing for the last 15 years.

That is true, but by diminish I mean, drift into obscurity; become extinct. Essentially Workchoices is the end of the road for private sector unions..

 

[Season]

The Workplace Relations Act furthered those reforms, as does Workchoices. The key issue at the heart of the workplace reform is that the face of the Australian economy is going to evolve immensely over the next 10-15 years, mainly in regards to supply.

From my personal experiences these industrial work reforms seem to benefit everyone except the people right down the bottom, the minimum wage workers. Who of course, are the most vulnerable.

When they first came in many of my friends had to sign agreements that said they could be fired without a reason, and if they didn't sign the contract they would be fired. Then guess what, their cool new boss then fired basically everyone and employed all of his friends. They're still in high school and can get another job, but imagine if they were actually working to live, or if they needed the money?

It didn't happen to one person either, its happened to all of my friends unless they work for a big franchise like Coles Myer where the reforms don't seem to apply.

As for destroying the unions, a lot of those people would rather be part of a team then have more money. Being treated as individuals in many places causes rifts in the organisation. Like in the case of the netball team in Queensland.

this is cartoon pretty much sums up what I think of IR reforms http://www.nicholsoncartoons.com.au/cartoon_5124.html

 

[Nick Minchin]

Re: 2007 Federal Election - Coalition or Labor/Howard or Beazley?

Human Services Minister Ian Campbell has resigned over his meeting with Brian Burke.

No doubt Howard has asked Campbell to go in order to allow him to continue placing pressure on Rudd. It gives the government the moral high ground and raises the question: if Campbell goes why shouldn't Rudd also be forced to go?

Campbell met with Burke only once and seems to have had a legitimate reason for doing so. Rudd met Burke on three occasions and cannot recall the exact nature of the dicussions. Additionally Campbell is a recently demoted minister, while Rudd is meant to be the alternate Prime Minister of Australia.

Expect the government to turn up the blowtorch on Rudd.


Campbell quits Cabinet

 

[Iron]

Re: 2007 Federal Election - Coalition or Labor/Howard or Beazley?

HAhahahah-har.

This is so eexcellently embarrasing for the government. I dont think it will go beyond that. Rudd's humility was gaining traction anyway.

Pity about Campbell though. He always reminded me of WAF

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Re: 2007 Federal Election - Coalition or Labor/Howard or Beazley?

*sigh*

Howard is a tool. Good political strategist? Maybe so, but it doesn't make him any less of an embarrasment. Here's hoping that somehow the ALP can turn the situation around on Howards head, pointing out his rank hypocricy and cruel leadership style.

I long for the days when a government would be in power not to be in power, and not to rule as a political organisation, but to be in power for the people and to rule for what the people want. Where's our modern day Gough Whitlam?

 

[Iron]

Re: 2007 Federal Election - Coalition or Labor/Howard or Beazley?

*sigh*

I long for the days when a government would be in power not to be in power, and not to rule as a political organisation, but to be in power for the people and to rule for what the people want. Where's our modern day Gough Whitlam?

? Whitlam is a shameless elitist - probably the biggest in the history of the planet. He sold out to power shortly after getting it. Bought into his own myth - just like all the others.

Howard;s genious is to sniff out community feeling and go for it. That's fantastic, but I tend to prefer an all-knowing Labor emperor.

At any rate, no serious party could campaign on a platform like Whitlams' due to the tight limits globalisation has placed on governance. We have to settle for the bland grey stuff.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Re: 2007 Federal Election - Coalition or Labor/Howard or Beazley?

community feeling my foot. If that were the case, then surely he would have resigned from the prime ministers position, called an election today and then conceded victory post-haste due to Kevin Rudd's soaring popularity ratings.

 

[Iron]

Re: 2007 Federal Election - Coalition or Labor/Howard or Beazley?

Ha. I was speaking in policy terms. But yes there are exceptions he makes for the 'national interest' (iraq, enviro), but I think that's what leadership is all about.

THere's a reasonable argument that people stray back to incumbency in the heat of campaign anyway. These early leads always evaporate, unfortunatley (latham probably the most gigantic example in civilization)

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Re: 2007 Federal Election - Coalition or Labor/Howard or Beazley?

Glad to see that you put "national interest" in quotations.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Re: 2007 Federal Election - Coalition or Labor/Howard or Beazley?

Current skynews poll asked the question: "Who does the resignation of Ian Campbell affect most?"

Howard: 61%
Rudd: 39%

But of an open ended poll question (affect in what way?), but interesting none the less.

 

[withoutaface]

Re: 2007 Federal Election - Coalition or Labor/Howard or Beazley?

Human Services Minister Ian Campbell has resigned over his meeting with Brian Burke.

No doubt Howard has asked Campbell to go in order to allow him to continue placing pressure on Rudd. It gives the government the moral high ground and raises the question: if Campbell goes why shouldn't Rudd also be forced to go?

Campbell met with Burke only once and seems to have had a legitimate reason for doing so. Rudd met Burke on three occasions and cannot recall the exact nature of the dicussions. Additionally Campbell is a recently demoted minister, while Rudd is meant to be the alternate Prime Minister of Australia.

Expect the government to turn up the blowtorch on Rudd.


Campbell quits Cabinet

I never got a few things about politics, this is one of them. This shit would've blown over in a couple of days given:
a) the meetings weren't one on one
b) we can be 99% sure that nothing questionable was discussed during them :/

 

[wheredanton]

Re: 2007 Federal Election - Coalition or Labor/Howard or Beazley?

Um...isn't it obvious?

A junior minister resigns (well not so junior but he isn't a household name) over one meeting with Burke. Puts pressure on Rudd (A household name of great importance to the ALP). Sacked minister puts on a few words about how he has the character to resign and that Rudd should as well.

When the Liberals win Campbell will get a portfolio. He probably was asked by Howard to make a sacrifice in order to make a play on Rudd. It worked.

As for blow torches. Shouldn't one be put up Costello for wasting question time bagging out Rudd's Haircut?

 

[Josie]

Re: 2007 Federal Election - Coalition or Labor/Howard or Beazley?

I never got a few things about politics, this is one of them. This shit would've blown over in a couple of days given:
a) the meetings weren't one on one
b) we can be 99% sure that nothing questionable was discussed during them :/

I'd say they're a bit desperate at the moment, they haven't found anything better to hang on Rudd, so they're milking this for all it's worth. Pressurreeee.

 

[frog12986]

Re: 2007 Federal Election - Coalition or Labor/Howard or Beazley?

I'd say they're a bit desperate at the moment, they haven't found anything better to hang on Rudd, so they're milking this for all it's worth. Pressurreeee.

And so they should. Something that seems to have gone amiss is the way in which Rudd uses such tactics regularly. The AWB issue (criticising ministers for failing to recollect exact details), and then attempting to suggest that there was impropriety in the 'dealings' with Ron Walker and Co. The crux of the matter is that if the ALP had of ignored the latter issue, this would never have surfaced.

Further, if it was Howard in Rudd's position the ALP would be crying foul.

As for a skynews poll, that's about as reliable as the Daily Telegraph State Election polls..

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Re: 2007 Federal Election - Coalition or Labor/Howard or Beazley?

I find it deeply disturbing that you'd even considering putting the AWB affair (funding weapons to be used against Australians) against some blown out meeting with some guy. Your judgement is clouded.

 

[umop 3pisdn]

What do you mean meeting with some guy?

That guy is BRIAN BURKE, the man who caused MASSIVE losses to the state of WA with his shady dealings, who was forced to quit the Labor Party (which is really saying something) because of evidence from the CORRUPTION AND CRIME COMMISSION.

Campbell went for one, Rudd should serve prison time for three.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

So this is a guilty by association thing then eh?

But you know, while we're suggesting prison sentences, I can think of a few reasons why Johnny should be in prison. The Iraq war, AWB, children overboard and "i'll keep your interest rates low" all seem to be instances of behaviour that were a little worse than meeting with some guy.

 

[Triangulum]

What do you mean meeting with some guy?

That guy is BRIAN BURKE, the man who caused MASSIVE losses to the state of WA with his shady dealings, who was forced to quit the Labor Party (which is really saying something) because of evidence from the CORRUPTION AND CRIME COMMISSION.

Campbell went for one, Rudd should serve prison time for three.

The only reason Campbell went was because Howard asked him to sacrifice his career so they could continue a cheap political attack. I think it's perfectly clear that he didn't do it because he felt that he was in any way compromised just by meeting with Burke.

Meeting with a person, when his crimes were not anywhere near as well-publicised as they are now, and when you are a senior politician who meets with hundreds of people a year, is not a hanging offence. Rudd admits it was an error, and that should be the end of it. There's absolutely no evidence that they discussed anything untoward (John Howard's assertions that we're now sure that they discussed the leadership being, as far as I can see, totally baseless).

I think we can all see perfectly well that this is a concocted political ploy. Rudd should, obviously, have expected something along these lines, so if he fails to respond well enough then that's his own fault for not being prepared, but don't act as if this is a serious allegation.