The NEXT coming Oz election thread!

From the ABC :-

Mr Vaile says Mr Combet should not be running for Federal Parliament.

"Greg Combet could've taken action against Dean Mighell after the inciteful speech that was given at this meeting in November of last year and Kevin Rudd should now take that action to send a clear message to the Australian people that he's serious about having an Australian Labor Party that is independent of the union movement," he said.
http://abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/05/31/1938646.htm

Why does the ALP need to be seen to be independent of the union movement? After all, the ALP was formed by a union of workers. Is mister vaile trying to tell us that the liberal party is independent of the business sector ?
Union organizers go to work sites as paid workers of the union membership to address concerns of its members, not as representatives of the ALP. Kevin needs to differentiate between the two and not be sucked in by howard and co into knee jerk reactions..

I'll just post a couple of cartoons from today's papers before heading off to bed ...

Hi Olgs, I'm back for this one.

The mere fact that we doubt Howard's motives on his approach on this issue means he shouldn't be our leader. I won't even get into the approach's failings just yet.

G'day hinge 'owzit goin'

hinge!!!!!!



How lovely to see you!

I'd be really interested in what you make of Howard's "intervention". I've read a few letters to the editor recently suggesting that, what ever his motives, we should support his decision to finally "do something". Of course, much does need to be done. Everyone knows that. But I have real concerns with how we're going about it.
Talk!

Prince willy for GG. Actually this could be an election issue.

He just wants to get as far away from his family as possible, dadpad. And who could blame him? :wink:

...but seriously, it is highly unlikely we are going to have any more British GGs.

No words necessary.



Nicholson of "The Australian" newspaper: www.nicholsoncartoons.com.au

I won't be bulled by unions, says Rudd

AAP

2 July 2007

KEVIN Rudd said he wouldn't respond to "bully boy" tactics after a union boss was taped saying he will pressure the Labor leader to deliver for unions once he becomes prime minister.

Details of last Tuesday's speech by Unions NSW secretary John Robertson appeared in Fairfax and News Ltd newspapers today.

The taped comments will play into the hands of the Government, which has claimed Mr Rudd, if elected, would be a union puppet.

http://extras.townsvillebulletin.com.au/rss_article.php?news_id=21734

Isn't it marvelous how these secret audio and video tapes suddenly appear.
If business pressure government, it's called " lobbying".
If unions do it, it's called "bullying" .
(tongue in cheek)Wouldn't it be nicer for kevin to say that he wouldn't respond
to " lobbying" from the unions?

Bungie

The only person being bullied at the moment is our (?) Kevin! He's being bullied & manipulated by those presenting these very convenient tapes to the media, who have not the remotest concern for the welfare of ordinary working people. He is not smart enough (or not politically savvy enough) to dismiss these claims for what they are. Unions are there to represent their members. Business lobbyists are there to undermine the rights of workers in the interests of profit for their companies & their shareholders. Kevin seems to not understand exactly who, as leader of the Australian Labor Party, he is meant to be representing.

Are you familiar with the 'new labor' concept that came with Tony Blair?

I think Rudd may have taken a leaf out of his book.

Of course, I think that leaf was taken out of Blairs book on the back of large donations by Big Business (my guess is that BB donates very heavily to both parties...and if Labor doesn't come to the party, then Liberals get all of it).

You are quite right, Labor represents the workers to a somewhat greater degree than business (as a govt, it must represent business also)...and I don't think that Rudd has understood the issue as you presented it...I think it's probably a different issue...eg what do you do when a company, say Telstra, comes to you and says (this is made up btw) "Kev, we're thinking about making a $250 Million donation to a political party, but we're still trying to decide which one. Can you tell me what your policies would be in relation to say, letting us build a Fibre to the Node Broadband network?" ....now as Kevvie would know, Telstra wants to build the network without having to wholesale it, which would be worth long term billions to them. He would also understand that if he didn't state that he would allow Telstra to build it without having to wholesale it, that the same question would be put to Honest Jonnie Overboard...and so...who gets the 'donation'?

Of course, I think allowing business to donate to political parties is one of the great corruptive devices of our generation.

Yes, I'm very familiar with Blair's New Labour, vikorr. Some pages back we we speculating on whether Rudd had adopted the Blair blue-print lock stock & barrel. (Sometimes I even get Kevin & Therese confused with Tony & Cherie! It feels a little like Ground Hog Day. :wink: )

In answer to your Telstra question: Kevin Rudd/Labor should not compromise the party's agreed/stated position for a Telstra "donation" or for any other reason. Why not? Because this would be the beginning of a slippery slide, that would eventually lead to Labor cutting its own throat & alienating its own members & supporters. What is the point of a party if it doesn't act in a way that's consistent with its own ideology? The Libs clearly know what they stand for & aggressively pursue pro-business policies. Under Rudd I think Labor is looking too much like it wants to please everyone, which isn't possible. Of course, Labor has to seen to take business & the economy seriously if it wants to be elected. But I sincerely believe Rudd's gone too far down the road of appeasing business at the expense of Labor's "natural" constituents. The differences between the two parties on the most important election issue, IR, is narrowing all the time. Which is making Labor look less & less like a clear alternative to many voters.

The other thing: I think Rudd actually feels more comfortable with business that with unions or with workers' issues. Apart from anything else, his family's considerable wealth was gained through his wife's business dealings. I really doubt he's had much to do with unions in his working life. He seems as suspicious of "union power" as the Libs do.

Hi Msgola

You may be right about Rudd being uncomfortable with unions.

As for the Telstra thing, it was simply a made up story to illustrate a point - If Rudd doesn't agree to <company> Proposal and JH does, then JH gets the money <however>. Enough big business donations going JH's way, and the Liberals end up with a very distinct advantage.

Yeah, vikorr, I know it was a hypothetical. But for Telstra to get the best deal for itself it would need to be able to play one side off against the other. If it was wheeling & dealing with only one side (the Libs) sooner or later the situation would be exposed for what it was. Corruption leading to a big political scandal.

Whether Rudd has any sympathy or is comfortable about union involvement in the political process is one thing. But certainly the Libs have identified his discomfort as his Achilles heel. A splendid tactic on their part to get an over-reaction from him (every time!) & divert the IR debate from the most damaging focus for the Libs. It is so embarrassing to watch his jerk reaction, time & time again! For heaven's sake, these wicked "union leaders" are simply doing their job: trying to get decent pay & condition for their members. No big deal to most of us.