Sellout? (1 Viewer)

[ohne]

Is it fair to throw regional logging communities in Tasmania on the scrapheap so we can feel good about the environment in marginal seats on the mainland?

http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,10967019%5E36277,00.html

 

[Ziff]

We're yet to see the alternative policies - though I do think that the alternative policies will be changed due to this announcement.

Secondly, since when have you cared about what unions say? Clearly, these unions are protecting the worst and laziest of the workers who don't want to change their ways!

Thirdly, I think that these logging communities are backward, stupid and selfish. This is what happens all the time in our country. The notions of protectionism and trade barriers etc are all a result of lazy workers who can't be arsed to develop and learn new skills so they can work in areas which are more profitable and useful to our nation. There's this thing called economies of scale, except protectionist policies and policies which make sure that we're not utilising our population to the extent in pertinent industries. Labor has at least released a policy which tries to make these people move on into areas which are much more beneficial for us from an economic and environmental point of view.

You have, however, just decided to take an anti-Labor line. From memory, you are a staunch supporter of economic rationalism - you dislike unions and prefer ecomomic reform. This is just another example of your hypocrisy.

 

[ohne]

We're yet to see the alternative policies - though I do think that the alternative policies will be changed due to this announcement.

Secondly, since when have you cared about what unions say? Clearly, these unions are protecting the worst and laziest of the workers who don't want to change their ways!

Thirdly, I think that these logging communities are backward, stupid and selfish. This is what happens all the time in our country. The notions of protectionism and trade barriers etc are all a result of lazy workers who can't be arsed to develop and learn new skills so they can work in areas which are more profitable and useful to our nation. There's this thing called economies of scale, except protectionist policies and policies which make sure that we're not utilising our population to the extent in pertinent industries. Labor has at least released a policy which tries to make these people move on into areas which are much more beneficial for us from an economic and environmental point of view.

You have, however, just decided to take an anti-Labor line. From memory, you are a staunch supporter of economic rationalism - you dislike unions and prefer ecomomic reform. This is just another example of your hypocrisy.

I do not hate unions, as I have said before I hate the ALPs idea of forcing people into unions.

My point is that when an organisation like the CFMEU starts endorsing Liberal candidates, Labor is really letting people down.

 

[Ziff]

They haven't said they endorse the Liberals (unless the Libs come out with a better policy).

I mean, here in Cunningham, the Unions did not endorse the Labor candidate at the 2002 bi-election and the Greens got a House of Representatives seat. There's an enormous difference between not endorsing one party compared to endorsing some other party these days because of the strong minor parties.

 

[Generator]

Senator Bartlett seems to have covered the issue well... We will have to see whether anything is achieved given that such studies and the like were carried out for the RFAs some time ago.

 

[ohne]

Senator Bartlett seems to have covered the issue well... We will have to see whether anything is achieved given that such studies and the like were carried out for the RFAs some time ago.

True, I mean there have been 20 scientific studies into this issue in the past 20 years. The ALP has, however, made a clear indiciation that it is seeking to move these people out of work.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Green preferences notwithstanding, I think Labor's proposal was actually a generous policy. $800 million for retraining, work transition, etc, wasn't it? They are at least placing a large amount in place for the workers.

It had to be done sometime; the forest isn't going to be there forever anyway.

 

[mervvyn]

I don't know all that much about Tasmania, so can someone please explain to me why they aren't trying to move onto sustainable/plantation foresting anyway? Like, why is it so necessary to clearfell virgin forest? Is it ideology or is there something more to it?