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

[frog12986]

If the electorate is so burdened and aghast at the new laws, then why does there need to be so much effort put into the union campagin?

It is more about union survival than a heart felt concern about the plight of the worker. They're scared, and the every last penny that they are allocating to this campaign highlights this more than anything else; an investment for survival. All I seem to hear is the same old rhetoric "working conditions cut, wages cut" etc, without any real substance.

Maybe the unions are in fact resigned to their fate? The top personnel seem to be heading for parliament, and well, that either indicates their is no future as a union delegate, or the cushy life of parliament is more appealing than the 'plight of the worker'..

It was good to see Gillard facing directly towards the Prime Minister on Monday in Question Time. She certainly showed she has more testicular mass than Rudd. Not a great fan of her, but I thought that at least showed she can confront the parliamentary debate..

 

[Triangulum]

I don't know why they even bother with question time any more. The whole thing is a partisan hatefest that adds nothing to governance.

I really don't understand the government's whole 'omg omg a labor government will b controlled by the UnIoNs!!!1!!' thing. Does Joe Average really dislike unions that much? If it's a choice between a union-backed Labor government aiming to increase the security of job conditions and a business-backed Coalition government aiming to reduce the security of job conditions, which is the ordinary person going to pick? (This is not to mention the fact that a Labor government wouldn't be 'controlled' by the unions any more than a Coalition government would be 'controlled' by big business, but I suppose it's too much to ask for a major party not to focus their campaign around shrieking hyperbole.)

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

All I seem to hear is the same old rhetoric "working conditions cut, wages cut" etc, without any real substance.

Hey maybe this is just word off the street, but didn't they scrap a few working conditions when they introduced the new workchoices legislation a few years back? You know, in the year or so until that fairness test was introduced (which I don't know much about), you heard all those stories about people losing conditions, being forced to work unfair hours, being offered AWA's with lower wages etc. I assume that only a fraction of those cases were heard by the media (that's common sense), and quite frankly only one case where a new law designed to positively impact the "economy" at the expense of citizens is too many, as well as pretty massive hypocracy. Shabby, shabby laws indeed.

As for Gillard in parliament, she sat there stoned faced watching whoever was speaking the whole time, ocassionally laughing and talking. It's been the same for every parliamentarian since Federation. Rudd's a lot cooler, and lot more relaxed in parliament instead of being a cocky douchebag - and by golly, it seems to be working for the man, eh?

 

[Sparcod]

frog12896 has made his 100th post in this thread!

If the electorate is so burdened and aghast at the new laws, then why does there need to be so much effort put into the union campagin?

I think that the main reason of the unions' campaign is not for electoral purposes but to inform the public of the bad side of WorkChoices and its impacts on working families. They could've done this last year or the year before. At the same time, they are trying to infulence the votes of the undecided and the swingers.

It is more about union survival than a heart felt concern about the plight of the worker. They're scared, and the every last penny that they are allocating to this campaign highlights this more than anything else; an investment for survival. All I seem to hear is the same old rhetoric "working conditions cut, wages cut" etc, without any real substance.

It's their job. They're there to improve workers' conditions and so to them, it is money well spent if Labor will be declared victorious. So I don't know if I'm right here but I do believe that you're denying this 'wages/conditions cut' thing. Yes? No? Maybe?

It was good to see Gillard facing directly towards the Prime Minister on Monday in Question Time. She certainly showed she has more testicular mass than Rudd. Not a great fan of her, but I thought that at least showed she can confront the parliamentary debate..

There was no Question Time on Monday (as it was the Queen's 'Birthday').

I agree with Triangulum's point- it's really annoying how the Howard government having this "Oh my God!! The unions will run the country again!! Unemployment will then rise to astronomical levels!!" feeling. As I mentioned before, the unions and Labor party are seperate these days.

 

[frog12986]

Edit: Tuesday question time.

The point is that the ALP represent the unions, which represents an ever decreasing proporition of the workforce. The government is highlighting that a party that is so heavily influenced by such an interest group is becoming less and less representative in the labour force context.

To contest that the Coalition is as influenced by 'big business' as the ALP is by the Unions is farcical. Coalition members, party decision making and party fundraising is not centralised to this interest group, but is spread across a 'broad church' as Menzies intended it.

Many people in the electorate do contest the role and influence of unions, and many are past the 'hyperbole' sprouted by the union movement time and time again. The accord is still fresh in many peoples minds, and that legacy is not so easily removed. It's easy to say conditions are 'cut', people are 'worse off', however providing real evidence of widespread occurrences is much more difficult. As a poll that other day highlighted, more than half of people surveyed, did not believe that IR reforms have or will have, an negative effect upon them (looking for it).

 

[Stott Despoja]

I really don't understand the government's whole 'omg omg a labor government will b controlled by the UnIoNs!!!1!!' thing. Does Joe Average really dislike unions that much? If it's a choice between a union-backed Labor government aiming to increase the security of job conditions and a business-backed Coalition government aiming to reduce the security of job conditions, which is the ordinary person going to pick? (This is not to mention the fact that a Labor government wouldn't be 'controlled' by the unions any more than a Coalition government would be 'controlled' by big business, but I suppose it's too much to ask for a major party not to focus their campaign around shrieking hyperbole.)

1. Unlike business interests and the Coalition, the Unions posses institutionalised power within the ALP (one only has to look at the ALP's National Conference, which, in theory, is meant to determine the ALP's policy platform, to see this).
2. Anecdotally, most people recognise and respect the efforts of the unions, but many also remember the abuses of old.

Though it is doubtful that an ALP government would damage business confidence to a great extent (if at all, I'm inclined to say), the fact of the matter is that it is incorrect to say that there is a fair comparison between the Coalition and the ALP when it comes to business interests and the Unions.

In this instance the politics of fear is hardly a one-sided affair - the politics of Work Choices and the prospect of union thuggery are both quite potent and seemingly real to many.

 

[wheredanton]

To contest that the Coalition is as influenced by 'big business' as the ALP is by the Unions is farcical. Coalition members, party decision making and party fundraising is not centralised to this interest group, but is spread across a 'broad church' as Menzies intended it.

I think you are drawing a hugely long bow to compare the modern Liberal 'broad church' (take a look at the NSW Liberals!) to the Menzies Liberal party.

The Liberals are very much influenced by big business, something I don't see much wrong with. Any government, ALP or Lib, must court big business to be successful. This isn't first year student politics where the naive believe the world would be a better place without corporations.

I don't think a distinction can be drawn between the Liberals and big business and the ALP and the unions simply because ones influence is centralised and easily identifiable (unions in relation to the ALP) and the other is not ('Big business' in relation to the Liberals). It is theoretically possible that the ALP, due to dwindling union power/money and membership, despite being centralised in terms of fundraising and leadership (and therefore easily identifiable) has a smaller influence on the ALP than big business (which is decentralised, hard to identify and with no clear leadership) has on the modern Liberal party.

Centralisation of fundraising and leadership is not always idicative of influence. Fair comment Frog?

 

[frog12986]

Centralisation of fundraising and leadership is not always idicative of influence.

Definitely True. It is not always indicative, but in many cases is.

The interesting thing is, the vast majority of big business interests that supposedly 'influence' the Coalition, make equal donations and the like to Labor in an attempt to court both sides (as you point out).

As for the Menzies referral, my point was that the diversity of influences in the Liberal Party is much more extensive than in the ALP, where the union role is still highly centralised

 

[wheredanton]

Not always, but in many cases is.

Really? Prove it.

My point was that it is wrong to say that because union power is centralised and easily identifiable then it must therefore have a greater influence on the ALP than non centralised and not so easily identifiable big business on the Liberal party.

Any suggestion that the influence of the unions on the ALP, because of centralisation of power, is greater than that of big business on the Liberals, has no basis other than the subjective and idiosyncratic views of anyone who holds such views.

The interesting thing is, the vast majority of big business interests that supposedly 'influence' the Coalition, make equal donations and the like to Labor in an attempt to court both sides (as you point out).

They like to have a bet each way - pragmatism. Donate to the ALP in the hope that they won't let the ideologues let rip at 'big business'.

As for the Menzies referral, my point was that the diversity of influences in the Liberal Party is much more extensive than in the ALP, where the union role is still highly centralised.

See above. Statements such as these have no basis.

 

[frog12986]

Really? Prove it.

My point was that it is distinction that cannot be drawn to simply say that because union power is centralised and easily identifiable then it must therefore have a greater influence on the ALP than non centralised and not so easily identifiable big business on the Liberal party.

Statements such as these have no basis.

Point taken, however, the relevance of the union role in the determination of policy and agenda within the party in much more influential than this 'dark influence' to which you refer. Of course the influence of business in relation to the Coalition is not as explicit as union influence in the ALP, however the party structures of each draw the distinction I am attemtping to make.

I am not denying that business has no influence in Liberal Party, however I do not believe that is comparable to the exertion or leverage unions possess over the ALP.

 

[Sparcod]

The point is that the ALP represent the unions, which represents an ever decreasing proporition of the workforce. The government is highlighting that a party that is so heavily influenced by such an interest group is becoming less and less representative in the labour force context.

That's a bit like saying that the Nationals don't belong in parliament because there are less farmers these days.

I disagree with your point there. The Labor party may not be as union-influenced today. Labor party is to provide a more liberal democracy whereby economic power is redistributed. The people who they intend represent may certainly not be a trade union member nor are they working in a union-dominated industry. They might be there for 'one group' of people but it's certainly not the trade unionists.

1. Unlike business interests and the Coalition, the Unions posses institutionalised power within the ALP (one only has to look at the ALP's National Conference, which, in theory, is meant to determine the ALP's policy platform, to see this).
2. Anecdotally, most people recognise and respect the efforts of the unions, but many also remember the abuses of old.

Though it is doubtful that an ALP government would damage business confidence to a great extent (if at all, I'm inclined to say), the fact of the matter is that it is incorrect to say that there is a fair comparison between the Coalition and the ALP when it comes to business interests and the Unions.

I didn't believe in this 'Labor will damage business' belief either. I do agree with you and I couldn't have said it better myself. Well done.

It'll always be Coalition vs Labor and Business vs unions to me rather than Coalition/Business vs Labor/Unions.

No Mr Froggy, the union role is NOT highly centralised within the Labor party. Even though the unions and Labor still enjoy some relationship.

 

[withoutaface]

Um, the Unions have 50% say in every preselection, I'd call that significant and centralised control.

 

[Sparcod]

Um, the Unions have 50% say in every preselection, I'd call that significant and centralised control.

I understand that the majority of Labor MPs are/were trade unionists. Labor also has strong (but weakening) links with the unions providing support. They were certainly founded by trade unionists!

My argument was that the ACTU/unions and Labor are seperate (or should I say, more separate these days) because they're not constantly looking into each others' matters and yes, they do still have some sort of a relationship- a distant one these days as the modern Labor wants to get rid of its old unionist image.

I apologise for uninterpretable posts. There are too many of them!

 

[withoutaface]

The way a party votes in parliament and influences public policy is through its elected representatives. In order to be elected, they must first be preselected, and in that sense the Unions have 50% control of the ALP's direction, with the other 50% going to the rank and file members. This is not a distant relationship in any way, shape or form.

 

[Sparcod]

Hmmm...didn't know that. Thanks.

I was just having a read of this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Labor_Party#Structure

 

[Triangulum]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200706/s1952810.htm

But the Prime Minister says the AEC has already made a decision.

"We've had an inquiry, there's been a conclusion and I've answered all the questions," Mr Howard said.

"I'm very happy to answer further questions but I think that we ought to have an inquiry into who's better able to run the Australian economy."

Say what you like about John Howard, you can never knock him off message.

 

[Iron]

I doubt Labor expected him to implode over it. I actually thought he seemed uncharacteristically sensitive about it

 

[Triangulum]

Labor attacks 'extremist' Hawke:

Labor has launched an attack on the Liberal Party for choosing Alex Hawke as its candidate for the blue-ribbon federal seat of Mitchell, accusing him of being a "right-wing extremist".

Mr Hawke, a prominent former Young Liberal, last night won the preselection battle for the north-western Sydney seat, beating fellow candidate, Australian Hotels Association deputy chief David Elliott by 107 votes to 81.

Mr Hawke has been accused by moderate Liberals of massive branch-stacking to secure the safest Liberal seat in NSW with a margin of more than 20 per cent.

Labor left-winger Anthony Albanese said today Mr Hawke was well known for his extremist views and tactics within the Liberal Party.

...

"The endorsement of Alex Hawke shows how John Howard is out of touch with the needs and aspirations of mainstream Australian families," Mr Albanese said.

"The question Liberal voters will be asking themselves is: is there any room for mainstream or moderate voices in the Liberal Party in the current climate."

Can anyone fill me in on what these 'extremist' views are? Is it the normal 'Thou shalt not have an abortion, under any circumstances' stuff or is it a bit more out there?

Also, when I saw that headline I thought that Labor was attacking Bob Hawke. Which would've made it a far more interesting story imo.

 

[withoutaface]

Alex is a great bloke who will be an asset to the parliamentary party. His views are a lot more tame than what the SMH would have you believe (for those of you who've done political compass he was about a +2 on the social axis), and he's highly accepting of alternative viewpoints (when I've had some of the more conservative and narrow minded members being highly critical to the point of telling me I was in the wrong party, he's actually stepped in and encouraged me to continue to get more involved).

 

[frog12986]

The ALP criticising the Liberal Party for flawed preselection and extremist views? THe same old hypocrisy..

It would have been wise to choose an MP to convey this issue who is not a member of the hard left of the Labor left... makes an incredible issue, even more incredible..