The official IR reform thread! (1 Viewer)

[Not-That-Bright]

IR protesters block Sydney's M4

Link?

I think that's totally wrong.

 

[Rafy]

Link?

I think that's totally wrong.

http://smh.com.au/news/national/ir-protesters-block-sydneys-m4/2005/11/15/1131951125790.html

 

[Not-That-Bright]

http://smh.com.au/news/national/ir-protesters-block-sydneys-m4/2005/11/15/1131951125790.html

Lol that's right in Sydney... That's not so bad. From just the title I thought they were blocking it around say the mechano set, effectively pissing 1000's of people off.

 

[erawamai]

I did not deny that fact. My point was based around the number of people who 'follow' John Howard in comparison to Mr Beazely due to those aformentioned factors...

...well again you can't say that all people who follow john howard is based on their support for his economic position. It is well known that if the australian population were to do the political compass test most would come out let wing. They support john because of his image and because he appeals to maintream social values...not because they understand dry neolibral economics.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

not because they understand dry neolibral economics

Well no, but I think if you asked most Australians say... "Should you be paid based on your contribution to society, or based on your needs" almost all would say based on contribution. Then if you gave them some questions like "should an aboriginal recieve more support than another person" I'd say most would say no...

 

[erawamai]

Well no, but I think if you asked most Australians say... "Should you be paid based on your contribution to society, or based on your needs" almost all would say based on contribution. Then if you gave them some questions like "should an aboriginal recieve more support than another person" I'd say most would say no...

...that's not neoliberal dry economics NTB. Today people are paid based on their contribution to society. Hence why some people are paid more than others. Even in the awful (shock horror) collective bargaining state we live in income based on contribution is a norm supported by everyone and probably the greens too.

the reforms will just make your income more in accord with your contribution to society rather than your 'needs'. As such neoliberal economics doesn't see anything as an inherent need that is immune from the market.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Well it is unsupportive of government structures to support people, so what is it? Social Democratic governments do not support 'pay for your contribution', they support giving many subsidies to disadvantaged people even if they have not made an equal contribution as someone who is not disadvantaged.

 

[Generator]

And what exactly did that achieve?

The point of a protest is to be make a public statement by being an inconvenience. However, given the nature of Australian society at the moment, such an inconvenience is no longer considered by many to be a constructive way in which to contest the status quo (or the incoming status quo).

 

[frog12986]

...well again you can't say that all people who follow john howard is based on their support for his economic position. It is well known that if the australian population were to do the political compass test most would come out let wing. They support john because of his image and because he appeals to maintream social values...not because they understand dry neolibral economics.

And my reference to John Howards support being based upon neo-liberal economics was where??

 

[Not-That-Bright]

The point of a protest is to be make a public statement by being an inconvenience. However, given the nature of Australian society at the moment, such an inconvenience is no longer considered by many to be a constructive way in which to contest the status quo (or the incoming status quo).

It's not fair to hurt others just because of your problems.
Sure, make an inconvenience but if they had truely shut down the entire M4 to get their point accross that would simply be too destructive in my books.

 

[Generator]

Hurt? A minor inconvenience (a few hours on one day) is a destructive act? Right on, NTB.

This isn't just a minor issue, NTB, so please don't try and suggest that this is a 'problem' faced by the protestors alone.

Edit: Of course, some may benefit from the supposed reforms, too.

 

[Rafy]

I admire the maturity of these protesters.

 

[erawamai]

My point was based around the number of people who 'follow' John Howard in comparison to Mr Beazely due to those aformentioned factors...

And my reference to John Howards support being based upon neo-liberal economics was where??

...so what are the 'aformentioned factors' you speak of which make people support the Liberal party. If its not economic policy (ie IR reform) what are they then?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Hurt? A minor inconvenience (a few hours on one day) is a destructive act? Right on, NTB.

This isn't just a minor issue, NTB, so please don't try and suggest that this is a 'problem' faced by the protestors alone.

Edit: Of course, some may benefit from the supposed reforms, too.

A few hours in a day can mean students turn up late for their exams / people turn up late for work / etc.

I don't believe they did shut down the entire m4, what they did was fairly minor.

 

[frog12986]

Aforementioned factors being the lack of clear party platform and a recognisable stance on a variety of issues..not purely economic issues..The fact that although Kim beazley has publicly denunciated the plaform that Mr Latham's campaign pertained to, nothing has been done to establish a new approach or policy base.

 

[erawamai]

Aforementioned factors being the lack of clear party platform and a recognisable stance on a variety of issues..not purely economic issues..

...so people support the liberal party by default? Not because their economic policy is valid. But because, according to you, the ALP has no clear stance on anything.

Kinda defeats the idea that support of IR reform is based on the population's innate understanding of the implications of neo liberal economics being further applied to the Labour market.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

People support the liberal party for the following reasons;

- They are doing better now than they did under the Labor party, so they feel they're better for the economy.
- They are anti-immigration.
- They are anti-aboriginal.
- They believe in neo-liberal economics.
- etc

That's what I think anyway, there also seems to be a favouritism by strong religious conservatives.

 

[erawamai]

People support the liberal party for the following reasons;

- They are doing better now than they did under the Labor party, so they feel they're better for the economy.
- They are anti-immigration.
- They are anti-aboriginal.
- They believe in neo-liberal economics.
- etc

That's what I think anyway, there also seems to be a favouritism by strong religious conservatives.

All those things...I actually believe most people vote howard because of his social policy. His rhetoric is very mainstream totally non intellectual. He never lectures the community from an intellectual POV even if it is the best POV. He never labours on correcting popular opinion (the exception is IR reform...he has such a big majority he could do anything....he doesnt have to justify it)...he embraces mainstream views on immigration even if they are incorrect. John Isn't about telling people they are wrong. He is all about saying he agrees.

I don't think many people vote for him due to his dry neo liberal bent. I think most people find dry neoliberal economics rather offensive. However its well packaged by the Liberal government. Any simmering resentment of howard government economic reform is lost when people have got a new car in the driveway (financed of course) and they like Howards social policy.

I mean Howard went to the 2001 election with a social policy (stop terrorist boat people. We decide who comes here and the circumstances in which they come (regardless of whether they are legit or not)...John Hewson went into his election with an overt dry neoliberal ECONOMIC POLICY and Keating, using social policy, ate him up.

Social policy is always more popular than economic policy. Especially when most Australians would do the compass test and come out onthe left side of neoliberal economics.

IMO Aussies vote for the Liberals because of what 'intellectuals' call mainstreaming. Never speaking down to the population. Using social trends for gain rather than lecturing the population on why the social trend is wrong. Anyone who dissents against the social trend is an 'intellectual'.

 

[frog12986]

The Liberal party has:

- a clear stance on economic issues; deregulation, societal contribution and incentive; fiscal responsibility aligned with targetted monetary policy usage.
- emphasised the need for morals and values that reside with many within the community
- emphasised the notion of the individual whilst concurrently supporting those of less opportunity and more need; welfare expenditure justifies this claim
- strong and secure borders and security (both parties support this)
These are the big three, among many..

NTB Anti-immigration? you're joking aren't you? This govenment has actually increased the overall level of immigration consistently over the past 10 years.

 

[erawamai]

NTB Anti-immigration? you're joking aren't you? This govenment has actually increased the overall level of immigration consistently over the past 10 years.

Liberal party rhetoric is anti immigration. Anyone who hates asians immigrating or thinks there are too many immigrants is going to vote for the Liberal party not the ALP...regardless of whether the Liberals have increased immigration or not.