-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
The Don's party Election night thread
- Thread starter Six Pack
- Start date
Liverpool said:
Not really, they had to combat Howard's wedge politics so they refused to engage him on those policies that the government was strong in and focus in on the differences between the 2 parties in the areas of workchoices, climate change, education and healthcare.
Liverpool said:
What was the court verdict on the Amcor/Visy Industries cartel? That didn't hurt any consumer or members of the public.
How is those oil companies too - they have the consumer's interest at heart - it is the very focus of their costing projects and marketing campaigns.
Then lets turn our attention to the Big Banks - they always care for their consumers - never putting exhorbinate bank fees on student accounts or pensioner accounts - nah they have the best social conscience of all in the private sector.
Nah big business is as ethically and morally pure as heaven's angels whilst those bloody unions they dance with the devil in the pale moon light. I even heard they have shared a tooth brush with satin himself!
Wake up Livers your side of the political spectrum are not as pure as you think they are - and at least the Unions are out in the open about what they are on about making them easier to contain and control.
Liverpool said:
Hindsight is easy, but Costello should have made his challenge last year. The party room hold a lot of responsibility though, they thought the Howard magic would get them through again, but too many passengers and not enough workers unfortunately. Costello now needs to take the reins and make everyone aware HE is the national Liberal leader, and drag them kicking and screaming with him. The NSW Right and the Kennett/Kroger stuff needs to be shelved, the Libs need complete unity now.
Cornes....completely agree, but to be fair the ALP never expected her seat to be in play. Again in hindsight I think they would have but a better candidate up, but hindsight is 20:20.
I was very impressed with Mal's concession speech. Loved the fact he cared more about his work than his job, sign of a good man.
Six Pack said:
Only with onion mate - but becareful that mix can give me flatulence................... :whistle
Tiger74 said:
I don't think he wanted to challenge and destabilise the party leading into an election year.
With Howard gone, it was actually not that big of a surprise it happened that Costello left as well.....reminds me of the Aussie cricket team with Warnie, McGrath, and Langer going at the same time.
Yes, it's going to be tough...but the Libs will battle on.
The ALP should win the next election as well unless they REALLY *smile* up big time....but after that, and with two terms of stuffing it up....the Libs will be ready to get back in again to fix the mess up.
I've still got my list of "me too" policies here from Rudd.....it will be interesting if he follows through with all the Lib policies he agreed upon (and hence anger groups, like the Unions who helped him get into this position)...or whether he does like Garrett suggested and change his tune dramatically, breaking all these promises, hence angering the people who voted for a 'change' in leadership thinking that they were getting "Howard Lite"....when in fact they got a bigger change than expected.
It is going to be interesting Tiger74.
What's your gut feel think anyway.....are we going to see broken promises to appease Unions and the 'true' ALP policies? or is Rudd really the "Howard 2.0" and that he will stand up to these groups like the Unions to keep his word?
Liverpool said:
I honestly think he will stare them down, but we will have a few strikes as a result. Same thing that happened in Vic after the Kennett era.
The ALP comes in after a long term successful Lib Govt, and the first reaction is "yay, party time". He has to resist the demands for massive increases in public service wages and admin, and writing the blank cheque on Work Choices reforms.
I think the two early tells will be:
1) Public Service Cut Backs
I actually support this, parts of the public service have become bloated under Howard (not a Lib thing, happens with all long term Govts). Will be as populate are anthrax though with the powerful public sector unions. He has to find the waste and duplication, and stay committed to it inspite of the blow back.
2) Work Choices
Fair enough, bring back unfair dismissals (at reasonable levels) and some of the other stuff. But the right to independantly negotiate if you choose to do so needs to remain, and the other secret ballots and bans on pattern bargaining and secondary boycotts should also stay. I realize like any negotiate, there may be some trade-offs to push this through, but the aim should be a policy of protections for the weak but flexibility in operation.
A good example is the fairness test. It actually did try to put in a mechanism to make sure AWA's were fair. Problem was there were a fair number of cr@ppy ones (a number of bosses are always pr1cks, that will never change regardless of laws), but the time it takes to process these things is taking too long, which is weakening the confidence in their worth amongst the lower rung of workers.
If they can find away to modify this to get a better balance, great. But it has to be a better balance, not a swing of the pendulum too far the other way.
Finally there is one other big long term tell, Federation. With party politics aside, we have a true chance to get a better balance in Federation, and dump duplication in health, education, water, etc. States being states will b1tch and whine, but he has a mandate, and has to push this through.
I know there are a lot of other things going on (like o/s economic influences, indigenous welfare, etc), but these are issues both parties will struggle to manage. You want to have a decent effort, but you cannot guarantee a lock. On the other hand, the three I listed are ones that ALP policy completely differs on from Libs, and were a big part of why they got into power. They have to prove that their differences can provide a better result, and its up for them to deliver now.
Tiger74 said:
And as we have seen with the nurses and teachers so far....we are still getting strikes.
I just hope things don't get worse with the ALP running all states and federally as well.
Tiger74 said:
I agree with that. If Rudd and co. can accomplish that, then good for them.
Tiger74 said:
This is one of the BIG topics I feel....and the real test for Ruddy and co.
Like the GST...the Libs actually brought it into use (after the ALP thought it up to begin with)....and yet I doubt very much that the ALP will get rid of the GST now. It is too good of a cash-cow for them.
The same with WorkChoices....in that the Libs brought it in, the ALP (along with the Unions) have used this topic as a main reason for why the voting public on election day had to vote for them....however, the key is what compromises he has made with the unions before the election.
If Rudd is the 'economic conservative' he has perceived to Australian throughout the campaign...then I can't see him personally being 100% against WorkChoices.
However, to get the unions backing him, he would have had to make some big compromises....and that is the crux of the matter.
It's going to be a big balancing act between keeping his 'economic conservative' image and proving to the Australian public that he is not just a puppet for the unions.....and still appeasing the unions so we don't have daily strikes across the nation which would set his new Government back on their heels in their first 1-2 years of office.
Tiger74 said:
Another major one is ratifying Kyoto.
How is this decision going to affect big industry here in Australia and along with that the economic consequences that it will bring?
And what is the point anyway of binding ourselves to this protocol, when we have developing nations who have signed Kyoto, but because they are classed as 'developing' they do not have to meet any set targets...even though they are the worst producers of emissions?
We also have nations out there who have signed Kyoto....such as Canada (50% above their target) and New Zealand (40% above their target)...which shows Kyoto is all wind and *smile*, to be honest.
It is a waste of time and why Howard was holding off signing Kyoto until there was a unanimous agreement where all nations were involved.
Why should our industry....and in turn....our economy, suffer...where other countries who churn out far more emissions than us, can do what they like under the umbrella of 'developing'?
It is a joke that out of the 165 nations that signed the protocol...only 38 had obligations to meet.
Kyoto is just a 'feel good' protocol where everyone thinks that signing it is going to save the planet....but really, it is saving nothing, but putting us under more economic strain...something Canada and New Zealand have obviously found out, hence their disregard to meeting their required targets.
If you are going to sign a protocol, all nations must have real set targets....not pie in the sky fantasies, or countries that have no targets at all.
First mistake by Rudd, in my opinion.
Liverpool said:
I have no issue with the nurses/cops/etc striking. They are demanding ridiculous increases (teachers want ideally a 30% increase in 3 years or at least parity with NSW), and any Govt caving into these demands is an idiot. Unfortunately with the tight labour market for most of these professions right now, you don't have the option of scab labour from interstate.
On Kyoto, its window dressing. We acted as if we were in Kyoto anyway, but stood out of it for political reasons. We now go into it for political reasons, although I think we now get access to its emmissions trading scheme (not 100% sure, don't pay much attention to Kyoyo TBH).
Bigger issue for Kyoto is getting a more serious position in the next round of negotiations. Rather than be seen as a serial offender (preception, but this is politics) we at least now will have the cred of actually doing something. Who knows where these discussions will go though. Doha went well, but the next round of WTO talks are stuck in mud. Wouldn't surprise me if we had similar for this.
The Coalition lost for a few reasons but Workchoices was one of the major ones. Only the West supported the Coalition and workchoices - the resources boom means that miners and the like can earn big pay cheques and can make AWAs work for them. They'll still be able to do this under Rudd as the threshold is 100K and over. Everywhere else there is a recognition that for young people and less highly paid people AWAs are a great way for a boss to screw over a worker.
People also recognise that there is still a role for unions - the scaremongering by the liberals did not work as people know that the militancy of the 1970s and before are gone. Scaremongering on unions didn't work - if anything it demonstrated the backwards looking nature of the Coalition. We still see it on this forum - "the country and business will collapse because the unions will run the country". Didn't happen under Hawke or Keating and won't happen now. The people who push these ideas are those who don't understand the present or the future.
This victory for Labor was unprecedented. Even in a deregulated economy - banks, labour market, financial system (largely deregulated by Hawke and Keating - another fact conveniently left out by the Coalition propagandists) that benefitted from the mining resources boom and the strong world economy, the voters rejected the "sit tight and do nothing approach" of the Coalition. No new ideas - just "Labor can't be trusted with the economy".
They deserved to lose - and the Australian public told them so loudly on Saturday.
People also recognise that there is still a role for unions - the scaremongering by the liberals did not work as people know that the militancy of the 1970s and before are gone. Scaremongering on unions didn't work - if anything it demonstrated the backwards looking nature of the Coalition. We still see it on this forum - "the country and business will collapse because the unions will run the country". Didn't happen under Hawke or Keating and won't happen now. The people who push these ideas are those who don't understand the present or the future.
This victory for Labor was unprecedented. Even in a deregulated economy - banks, labour market, financial system (largely deregulated by Hawke and Keating - another fact conveniently left out by the Coalition propagandists) that benefitted from the mining resources boom and the strong world economy, the voters rejected the "sit tight and do nothing approach" of the Coalition. No new ideas - just "Labor can't be trusted with the economy".
They deserved to lose - and the Australian public told them so loudly on Saturday.
Workchoices was the big killer for the Libs& the in fighting didn't help.Overall the Libs have done a pretty good job the past 10 years apart from workchoices & the Iraq war they haven't done alot wrong.We have seen plenty of talk from Rudd but lets see what he actually does.I find Rudd about as genuine as an American preacher but time will tell how good he is.Weak effort from Costello to walk away from the leadership of the Libs.Wanted the pm's job handed to him on a platter.
antman said:
Yes, and what you are doing by scrapping AWAs altogether and having 'flexible contracts' for people over $100,000 is segregating into two classes the entire workforce....the "haves" and the "have nots".
Why not try people under the same circumstances no matter what they take home?
antman said:
It did happen under Hawke, Keating, Cain, and Kirner...remember the "recession we had to have"...the stevedores, the breweries at Christmas, nurses, teachers, etc.
What makes this election result like walking on a tightrope now, is that for the first time we are witnessing the ALP in full power across the nation, and one of (if not) the most inexperienced Government we have ever had, and a Government that has a union membership much higher in proportion than the rest of Australia.
This isn't scaremongering....it is fact.
antman said:
No new ideas?
Well, considering Rudd agreed with pretty much everything the Coalition introduced during the campaign...it seems the ALP weren't far behind in the 'no new ideas' approach.
The only differences let out of the bag pre-election were the modifications to workchoices, ratifying Kyoto....and a host of slogans "working families", "education revolution", etc.
And the perception that the ALP can't be trusted with the economy has been borne by experience of past ALP governments at both state and federal level.
Remember, it was Kennett that got us back our triple-A credit rating and brought us back from the worst state in Australia to the best state in Australia.
And it was the Howard government that brought us back from a $96-billion debt to having no debt.
The country has been left to Rudd in a far better condition than when Howard received it....and now it is Rudd's job to prove that the ALP can run the economy.
The figures over the next few years will determine this....we'll wait and see.
Liverpool said:
Well no, not if it means workers don't have the right to collectively bargain. Collective bargaining has always worked much better for less well-paid workers. Higher paid professionals tend to need unions less. Regardless, you would deny collective bargaining to everyone in the interests of "fairness".
It's bullshyte and the public saw through it. Deal with it. When John Howard was treasurer under Fraser he did nothing positive and interest rates hit 22% - we never hear about that from you though. You can keep harping on about ancient history all you want - just like the Liberals did - it won't do you any good. And by the way - most of the public support the nurses and teachers. I can't remember the last brewery strike to be honest.
"Recession we had to have" - all western economies have times of recession. You have to ask why they have them and how governments deal with them - I remember recessions under Fraser/Howard as well. I notice you have nothing to say about the Hawke/Keating deregulations. Here's a challenge for you - come up with two significant economic reforms that Costello/Howard came up with besides the GST and Workchoices.
Exactly the same small target strategy adopted by John Howard in 1996 in case you have forgotten. As I said, Workchoices and no new ideas killed this government, that and Howard's wedge politics came back and bit him on the arse.
On the states - ask yourself why there are now no Liberal governments in Australia - and if the states are so badly run why did we elect a Federal Labor government?
I cannot believe it, well I can, but Abbott is putting his hand up.
Given his pathetic performance during the election, he should be in the corner right now keeping his trap shut. The only person who did more damage was that twit Jackie Kelly, but thankfully she retired.
Sounds like Lexy is going to give it a miss, making noises about "been there, done that" and mustering up the energy. If its a three horse race between Turnbull, Nelson, and Abbott, you would have to think Turnbull at this stage (ignoring factional issues, which unfortunately you cannot ignore
.
Given his pathetic performance during the election, he should be in the corner right now keeping his trap shut. The only person who did more damage was that twit Jackie Kelly, but thankfully she retired.
Sounds like Lexy is going to give it a miss, making noises about "been there, done that" and mustering up the energy. If its a three horse race between Turnbull, Nelson, and Abbott, you would have to think Turnbull at this stage (ignoring factional issues, which unfortunately you cannot ignore
.