That’s the Right dealt with, now for the Left

Posted by the piping shrike at Tuesday, November 27, 2007

Friends, tomorrow the work begins. Australia's long-term challenges demand a new consensus across our country. I'm determined to use the office of prime minister to forge that consensus.

I want to put aside the old battles of the past: the old battles between business and unions, the old battles between growth and the environment, the old and tired battles between federal and state. The old battles between public and private.

K Rudd 24 November 2007

It will be some time before the significance of Rudd’s highly revealing victory speech becomes apparent. The basis of what he was saying hinged on his idea of a new consensus. Andrew Bolt got this 100% wrong on Insiders when he said Rudd was doing me-tooism with Hawke on this. Rudd’s consensus is utterly different from Hawke’s.

Full post at The Piping Shrike

Moments

Good Stuff

0) Rudd mentioning Bernie Banton in his speech. I clapped.

1) The cheer from the counting room crowd when they first heard Howard was behind in his seat.

2) "Julia! Julia!" making it hard for Kerry to hear himself speak. It was brilliant.

3) Peter Costello looking like a weight had been lifted from his shoulders.

4) Peter Costello thinking he's going to be the leader of the opposition because Howard said it would be a smooth transition to him.

5) Howard saying that the next leader would be decided by the party, taking responsibility for the loss and failing to retire then and there, screwing Costello one last time and confirming he lies simply because it's in his nature.

6) The atmosphere at Howard's concession. It was like he was Jim Jones. This guy kept screaming about how much he loved Howard. I was expecting them to break out cups of poisoned kool aid any minute.

7) Wilson Tuckey getting the fright of his life.

8) Greens polling so well, though it was largely skewed to certain seats. Went as high as +20% in some of them.

9) Downer claiming that 'bad timing' caused their election loss.

10) Learning that the libs are much easier to listen to... in opposition.

11) Joe Hockey talking about how devastating it is for his lib friends sacked for operational reasons, while the world's smallest violin plays for him.

Sad stuff:

1) Bartlett losing. Totally undeserved.

2) Ditto Kerry Nettle, she'll be missed.

3) Brough losing. He was way, way down on the list of govt. members deserving the chop.

4) The reptillian Pyne making it back. He announced he wants to slither into the deputy lib position, so it's not all bad news.

5) The hopeless Ron Boswell in the senate.

6) Steven Fielding not being struck by lighting. I'd had my hopes but on the balance, I'll take it.

Shrek Returns to Swamp, Finds Donkey

Joe Hockey and Jackie Kelly discuss campaign strategery

As if being the poor goose that has to defend Workchoices isn’t enough of a burden, now Joe Hockey has to try and put out the fires of those political pyromaniacs of the Kelly Gang in his own seat – in 48 hours.

Shreks electorate of North Sydney is filled to the brim with people of a certain moral persuasion on social issues, their delicate Naw Shaw sensibilities being almost legendary…. Dahrling.

But out in the Bogansville of Lindsay, uber-Bogan Jackie Kelly and her bourbon swilling coterie of mental midgets thought it would be a really shit hot idea to start handing out fake ALP pamphlets depicting Labor being under the thumb of mufti-madness.

Gold. Read the rest at Possum's Pollytics.

Go see the interview with Kelly. Make sure to watch right to the end. Laurie Oakes tears her a new one.

Caroline Overington Rings VTAY

About a week ago I wrote a post about L'Affaire Overington in which, entirely as ridicule, I said:

That was written after Overington scrawled a column saying Ecuyer planned to direct preferences away from Newhouse, who it seems she's been sharpening an axe for. Apparently the two of them [Newhouse and Ecuyer] went out for a few weeks, it didn't work out, and now she's back to boil his pets and derail his political career, er, run as an independent. Anyway, here's the money email.

"Too early! My girl, you've got four weeks!!
Please preference Malcolm. It would be such a good front page
story. Also, he'd be a loss to the parliament and George - forgive
me - would be no gain. ;)
— Email from Caroline Overington to Danielle Ecuyer"

How did she manage to type that with the Member for Wentworth's member in her mouth?

I thought it was pretty funny, because clearly I am a very funny man. All twelve of my readers agree with me. It would appear my attempts at humour have fallen flat in the offices of The Australian, hereafter referred to as the Government Gazette. Caroline Overington emailed us today asking to talk with us. She was cagey about what she wanted to discuss, insisting on a phone call. We agreed, reluctantly, because we wanted to find out what it was about. What could we have written on our tiny, barely-read blog to prompt a call out of the blue from a senior writer and columnist with The Australian? A two-time winner of the Walkley Award for investigative journalism (2004 and 2006) and recipient of the Sir Keith Murdoch Award for Excellence in Journalism, for a series of articles on the Iraq wheat sales scandal (excellent work, credit where it's due!).

Well, to summarise our conversation: She demanded we remove the statement. First it was because her kids might see it. I replied that we were nowhere near the top 5 pages on a google search. Then it was because she was a married woman and the statement implied she was having an affair with a government member, which just couldn't stand. I defy anyone to look at the context of the statement and come to a conclusion that I was even implying that an affair was going on between them. Of course, she made the statement, not I. Also I note that in her emails to George Newhouse she stated that she was separated. "Not married, me. Separated five months ago."

She repeatedly brought up the marriage thing. She threatened legal action. I replied that I thought we'd be safe for reasons of absurdity of the statement, satire, and comment, otherwise we wouldn't have stand up comics. She claimed such defences wouldn't extend to our 'political' blogs. I asked her whether she'd like to legitimise a non existent implication by dragging us to court. She wouldn't answer, or state that she was in fact going to take legal action. She then implied that Malcolm Turnbull wouldn't be able to let the non-existent implication stand, suggesting he might sue us. I didn't enquire as to whether she had consulted Mr Turnbull or if it was just another click of the ratchet in her attempt to heavy us. Prior to accepting Ms Overington's call google analytics revealed someone had gotten to the post in question via the keywords "Caroline Overington husband" That generated only two hits. In the end I refused to remove the text she requested.

1) There was no implication the two of them were in a sexual relationship. The context of the statement was of her extraordinary attempts (bending over backwards, if you will) to be of service to Mr Turnbull. I did not speculate as to any relationship between them nor did I imply there was one. That she continually brought this up mystifies me.

2) The statement is patently absurd to a reasonable person and was made in a satirical context. There is no way anyone could think I was implying Ms Overington had a sexual relationship with Mr Turnbull. If I said John Howard was 20 feet tall, farts mustard gas and eats Chinese immigrant babies would I be liable to be sued?

3) I believe in free speech. If this is an issue of Ms Overington defending her reputation, why doesn't she go after the people who claim she's biased in her columns? We are defending our right to make fun of her. Certainly, if we're going to start loading the torpedo tubes, we should mention email threats to ruin Mr Newhouse's reputation. Something about houses, glass and stones in there. Also why is Ms Overington allowed to violate the spirit, if not the letter, of the electoral act and defend herself by claiming it's all a joke? Why don't we get similar consideration?

4) This is my latest bank statement.



Ms Overington can lawyer up and come get it if she wants. Perhaps she can split it with Mr Turnbull. I won't give up my $43 without a fight. Or my 71 cents.

It goes back to what I said about Australian media personalities constantly trying to insert themselves into their stories. If Ms Overington hadn't been engaged in doing just that she wouldn't be stuck trying to defend her hard earned reputation. It is simply beyond belief that a professional journalist would contact people like us and use legal threats (whose lawyers will she use, News Ltd's or her own?) to shut us up. Not only that but that she would allege that the law makes no exception for satire or comment in Australia. Watch out Crikey, you'll be out of business before long. I also find it odd that a journalist would be so ignorant of the Streisand effect. You know those thrillers where a guy's walking down the street and someone gives him something out of the blue and all of a sudden everyone's trying to kill him and he thinks he doesn't know anything but it turns out he does? I feel like I'm in one.

Howard on the 7.30 Report

Slippery right to the end. He won't release their secret plan on Ultra-Workchoices but expects us to trust them when they say there is no secret plan.

He just invented a parallel history where Keating didn't get rid of centralise wage fixing. Reckons Keating, who made it idependent, didn't respect the independence of the reserve bank. Jesus Christ. Voters clearly think the economy is a '64 Chevy and Howard is the dancing Elvis doll on the dashboard that keeps it running because it's 'lucky'. He's lying and spinning in all directions. Howard has been thoroughly exposed by O'Brien for the mediocre fraud he is. I feel sorry for him, almost. He looks lost.

Howard wants to have everything both ways! He denies running a fear campaign. Claims we all love him really because he's a 'good economic manager' (thanks, mug punters). He replies to accusations of running a fear campaign by pulling out the Rudd=risk. Now he's running the Greens fear campaign. Uh oh, nuclear power... He pretty much admits he has a plan for a nuclear Australia. He is so slippery, Kerry's nailing him to the wall. Kerry nails him on stealing Rudd's education revolution but taking it back to the '50s. Keeps trying to bring back the culture wars. This goes back to an earlier post I made on Rudd's neutralisation of the media. Without his media chums Howard's wedges just look like the rantings of an old codger whose views belong in a dusty museum hallway.

Kerry goes after Howard's excessive advertising. Apparently he won't respond to Kerry's question on asking Downer to canvass the party room on his behalf. Claims that he won't lose his seat. I saw the terror in his eyes just then. Hahaha "My focus is my focus." Hahahaha, Kerry says goodbye to Howard as if this is the last time (we can only hope).

It's easy to feel sorry for Howard, now that his pathetic empire of lies and deceit seems to be collapsing around him. I do feel sorry. I feel sorry for refugees left to drown or rot in island gulags so he could have another crack at the wine cellar. I feel sorry for the 4,000,000 plus Iraqis made sport of the wind and sun, refugees from their country so Howard could feel like a big man. I feel sorry for the soul of our country, tarnished by eleven years of corrosion. For Mr Howard I feel... nothing. He'll wander off into a lavender retirement, pensioned off with all the creature comforts. Maybe there'll be a newspaper column to vent his bitter, twisted spleen on. Meanwhile the rest of us will get back to scrubbing the dirt off our national identity.

Video.

Broadband


Dial-up

Rudd on Rove

LABOR leader Kevin Rudd has shown a more relaxed side on a television chat show as the election campaign enters its last week.

Mr Rudd has refused to claim election victory despite polls showing that he has a commanding lead but told the Rove show last night that he could deliver a knockout blow to Prime Minister John Howard - in a bar-room brawl.

When the Labor leader told host Rove McManus he didn't hate Mr Howard - he just wanted him out of government - McManus suggested Mr Rudd would still beat him in a fight.

"If I couldn't, wouldn't there be a real problem?" Mr Rudd said.

"The guy's 20 years older than me."

Mr Rudd also fielded questions during a light-hearted interview about turning gay, eating ear wax and the difference between a nerd and a geek.

The prime minister has so far declined invitations to appear on the talk show.

news.com.au

We caught the second half of this and despite Rudd's cop out on who would he turn gay for (his wife, bizzarely) his performance was excellent. He came across as accessible and it was obvious he was making a gesture towards young voters (I'll come to where you are instead of demanding you come to me like Howard). If he didn't have it before the youth vote will be all but sewn up after that. It's nice to see a politician not terrified of the electorate like John Howard obviously is.

Ad Watch – The differences between Rudd and Howard

Posted by the piping shrike at Saturday, November 17, 2007



At first this blog hated this ad. It was annoying, a bit smart-arse and there was a slight undertone of making Rudd seem like a lightweight, which with coalition ads suggesting that Rudd couldn’t stand up to the unions, did not seem like a good idea.

Full post at The Piping Shrike

Rudd's First 100 Days

As the final countdown to the November 24 poll begins, Mr Rudd outlined to The Sun-Herald his top five policy goals for the first 100 days if Labor forms government.

Declaring Christmas and Boxing Day the only holidays the first Labor cabinet in 11 years would enjoy over the summer break if victorious, he promised to oversee the implementation of policies in all portfolios.

"I believe leadership is about leading, with clear-cut direction," he said.

If victorious Mr Rudd wants to become known as "the education prime minister". He set five key goals for a Labor government's first three months:

1. Ratify the Kyoto Protocol. "We need to make sure we are around the negotiating table immediately ... for the next round of commitments on reducing global greenhouse gas emissions."

2. Start immediately to negotiate with the states on reform of hospital practices. "That is of crucial importance - we've got $2.5billion on the table but we'll need to frame a co-operative agreement around performance measures."

3. Begin the roll-out of the high-speed broadband network, along with connections to schools. In tandem, open up tenders for the $1 billion school computer program.

4. "Hit the ground running" with the implementation of the $2.5 billion program to upgrade trades training centres in secondary schools. "I went back to C block [the technical faculty] at [his old school] Nambour High the other day - it hadn't changed since I was there. It was like walking into a museum."

5. Begin negotiations with the Americans and Iraqis for the staged withdrawal by mid next year of Australian combat troops. "I have been very blunt with President Bush ... I have a no-surprises policy when it comes to these things."

Mr Rudd said a Labor government would start work immediately. "Christmas and Boxing Day we can have off, then it's to work."

The Labor leader said he wanted to be known as "an education prime minister", someone who didn't just talk about education but fundamentally transformed education as funded, delivered and measured from early childhood through to rocket science.

"This is the pathway to every person's future opportunities."

SMH

I think we're going to be just fine under a Rudd government. I'm a bit suspicious but why commit to a numbered list of things you're going to do and get them printed in national newspapers if you aren't going to do them? I mean people will be able to drag this out, you don't make a rod for your own back like that unless you're serious. I suppose it's always possible this would be a never ever GST moment but somehow I doubt it. Personally I feel like we'll be getting a PM who'll govern for us instead of for the over 55s.

I'm not given to flights of optimism and have little use for narcissistic nationalism but, damn it, Rudd makes me hopeful for our nation, hopeful in a way that can only be betrayed. I just can't see how or where it's going to come. Is he pulling out of Iraq to invade Iran? Does he secretly work for the Exclusive Brethren?

That list is like a 14 year old boy waking up next to a naked, horny Salma Hayek. It just can't be real, but there it is, and suddenly instead of enjoying your dream you've got her under the lights, quizzing her about how she got in, who sent her and what happened to her clothes. Even if he only does two things on that list it'll have been worth it. He's already lashed himself to mast on accountability so he's going to have very little room to maneuver. I guess it all depends on if the Libs fuck this up with their firewall, desperation strategy and the defeated coalition rump led by a smirking Costello frustrate him at every step.

Endgame?

Possum's Pollytics reckons the Libs will implode next week as the reality of their situation becomes apparent. Is it really that dire? If it is, what has Howard got left in the hat?

We are about to enter the most dangerous week the Liberal Party has ever faced in the history of its not inconsiderable life.

The political and media system has caught up to what we’ve been saying for the last 5-6 months (this site has actually been running 6 months to the day, as of yesterday).

The message is clear - the game is over.

That is what makes it so dangerous.

The polls are consistent, the fantasy of “Liberal strategists” being able to hide under the petticoat of fictitious marginal seat polling because “they’re closer than the national polls suggest” now looks like the façade it actually always was. The media have picked their winner, Uncle Rupert has moved behind Rudd in The Oz to match what has in reality been happening with his Tabloids and the Smage for weeks. This very morning Centrebet blew out to $4.60 - reflecting that even the punters are starting to get it, punters which haven’t got very much at all over the last 5 months.

Full post at Possums Pollytics

Rudd vs The Media

Kevin Rudd has declined to appear on the ABC Insiders, choosing instead to appear on Rove. One of the features of this election has been the skillful manipulation of the media by Rudd. Throughout the campaign he's had the whip hand in the relationship, all but directing the media spotlight. First there's the heavy reliance on the internet to short circuit the media. This is important not because it reaches more people than the mass media, it doesn't. What it does do is force the media to simply report a prepackaged message. Instead of paying for advertising or appearing on carefully crafted ambush talk-shows Rudd has been able to control his message by creating a new supply of information he controls, forcing the media to cover it. Several times internet announcements have been used to hijack the media's very slow train of thought. This is significant in part because it shows his team 'gets' the nature of the internet as a medium but also because it recognises how our media behave. We're not ranked near the bottom of OECD press freedom for nothing. Australian media exists largely as a vehicle for the larger ambitions of the personalities within it. As such it must generate constant controversy with each personality vying to bring you the latest bun fight. This is the role they play for Howard. He only sets the wedge, the media hammer away at it.

If you look at the campaign, the media have tried to create the kind of petty squabbling they need to feed off. The strip club incident, the me-too copycat nonsense, the tax policy beat up etc. each time they've tried to turn the campaign into a bitchy scandal and Rudd into just another politician. That's not to say he isn't just another politician but his astute handling of the media has helped him sidestep the wedges Howard has tried. Take a look at the campaign launches. The media were caught flat footed by Rudd's exquisite reverse wedge on Howard. They all thought it would be two competing porkfests, instead Rudd chose the second last week of the campaign to put daylight between himself and Howard. In the context of the polls the campaign launches were meaningless and yet somehow Rudd was on the front page of practically every paper in the country simply for being different from Howard. Even now, trapped in the old media paradigm Howard's calling press conferences to attack Rudd's economic credentials, completely unaware that the battle was fought and lost two days ago, an eternity in Rudd's tactics.

So what does it all mean? When you compare Rudd's mastery of our rather brainless media elite to Howard's hostile, ham fisted approach (cultivate a set of servile, wooden-headed sycophants and give them access) does this mean they'll be less able to hold Rudd accountable for anything? Have we got a Blair on our hands? At least in terms of media management. Rudd is nowhere as cold and dead, as middle management as Blair. It bears thinking about.

Maybe Keating was right after all

Posted by the piping shrike at Thursday, November 08, 2007

A criticism Keating made in his notorious Lateline interview last June was the return to Rudd’s campaign of former Labor campaigners Epstein and Gray, both of whom Keating blamed for the Beazley defeats. At the time, this blog thought it a bit unfair given the main problem in those years was that the party had lost its old role that Keating himself had helped to end. However, without knowing exactly what role these two are playing in Labor’s current campaign, he may have had a point.

Full post at The Piping Shrike

Labor helps rate rise become a Howard plus

Posted by the piping shrike at Wednesday, November 07, 2007

The polls say that interest rates are not the direct responsibility of politicians and this blog believes it. What the public is being convinced on is that union influence and wages are. They are not only being told this by the government in its attack on union influence in the Labor front bench.

Full post at The Piping Shrike

Dear Readers!

Having been absolutely blown away by the sheer numbers of people madly clicking the contribute link and sending their thoughts our way, we've decided to do something different.

Take five minutes to think about the last election. Who did you vote for? Why did you vote for them? How about now? Who will you vote for? Why will you vote for them? Click on the contribute link and email us your thoughts. You can remain anonymous if you like and your email address won't be posted anywhere, scouts' honour!

Last election I voted Labor and preferenced the Greens, putting me among a group of about 12 people who were impressed by Latham's lack of bullshit and relative honesty. I couldn't care less that he got into fights and drank lots (wholly un-Australian activities if I ever heard of any). I liked his policies and it wasn't as if I was going to be inviting him over for dinner.

This time around I'll probably vote Green because job 1 is making sure no single party controls the senate. Also the Greens are the party least likely to restrict my freedoms, probably because they don't have any power but I'll cross that bridge if we ever get to a Greens government.

Your turn.

ps thanks to those that have posted comments, it's always good to get feedback.

Why it’s all about John

Possum's Pollytics has an interesting take on the importance of Howard to the Liberals' chances in the election.

Possum Comitatus @ 7:03 am

Since February, the Coalition political strategy has played out on the ground as an attempt to focus attention on Rudd. Whether this has been more by accident than design is probably worth pondering as well, but for all the “look at Kevin” programs, not a great lot has been achieved.

Full post at Possums Pollytics

Yes, this is not an ordinary election

Posted by the piping shrike at Saturday, November 03, 2007

Leaving aside Mr Shanahan’s strange way of seeing margin of error only applying in the government’s favour not Labor’s, it is definitely true that the swing in the marginals is not as pronounced as that happening in the government’s safe seats. Newspoll trend surveys have been showing the same thing even in Beazley’s day. The 5-10% swings by state that Newspoll reports in the marginals is not out of line with what the those trend surveys has been showing.

Full post at The Piping Shrike

Political smear campaigns

Yesterday, Joe Hockey was busted admitting that the Libs are running a smear campaign, "based" on fact. (See Mikey's post on this - very funny.)

Hockey is also effectively accusing the ALP of running a scare campaign by proxy - because of the ads that the unions are running.

"I don't think the Labor Party is in any position to judge us on the credentials of our advertising campaign, when they've been the beneficiaries of the greatest fear campaign ever run by the union movement in Australia," he said.

A couple of months ago, I received a pdf of a page that had clearly been ripped out of some kind of magazine, outlining the "frightening" details of the union involvement of Rudd's team. I've saved it as a pic and you can take a look below (click to enlarge).

While I don't know the actual document from which the page was ripped, given the choice of colours, and the colours used in the ads being run by the Liberal Party, I can hazard a guess.

(And poor old Peter Garrett. Lumped in with all the "union officials". Because apparently having a life before entering the political fray is enough to incur the wrath of some. Abbott was in a seminary and worked as a journo before joining the Liberal ranks - and let's not forget his early union membership - does that mean that he gets to be lumped in with all the lawyers?)

The point of all this is: there will continue to be either poor or excellent attempts at swaying people's votes, purely based on the fear of what will happen. But the future is never set in stone.

Given that Australians trusted the ALP for so many years before switching to the Libs (and that was because they successfully managed to convince that they were for "battlers"), and they provided the platform for the coalition's economic growth, means that there should be no fear in voting the ALP back into power.

As for the make up of the cabinet? Things are never perfectly proportioned in the real world. Take a look at your friends - are they perfectly representative of the diversity of Australia? Unlikely. So you cannot realistically expect your government to be. You vote for the people you think will do the job best for you. How do you know who will do what is best? You do not base it some information that is presented to you by a biased source, you go and find out the information for yourself. If you want to live in a democracy, you have to be willing to put in a little effort.

Now what?

Posted by the piping shrike at Monday, October 22, 2007

The debate looks as though it could be the circuit breaker - for Rudd. It is not so much that his performance last night was exceptional, rather that Howard threw all he had and nothing much happened. It is a sign how the government has been living in a one-sided debate bubble that Howard thought the first question he could ask was about Rudd not bringing up climate change with George Bush!

Full post at The Piping Shrike

e-Too! on Tax

Published by Possum Comitatus @ 3:09 pm

The ALP tax response is a simple one; Me Too for those earning up to 180K using the Coalition tax plan as the base, remove the top tax rate and flatten the system over the coming years as the reform sizzle, and offer 50% tax rebates through FTB Part A for $750 and $1500 for education expenditure on primary and highschool children respectively with a big focus on net connections, computers and software.

It’s an e-Too on tax ;-)

Full post at Possums Pollytics

Union attacks

Mr Hockey, whose Liberal Party has launched scathing election advertisements highlighting the 70 per cent of Labor frontbenchers with a union background, said it was incredible Labor intended to govern with such a high union representation.

"[The role of unions] is essentially over," Mr Hockey told ABC Radio today.

"That's because we have a system with a strong, independent umpire that is providing protections for workers.

"Because the unions do not cover 80 per cent of the workers out there, we find that people are turning to the Workplace Authority and the Workplace Ombudsman to obtain information and to get protection."

Mr Hockey said workers who were not union members could turn to the Workplace Ombudsman for advice, but the Labor Party wanted to dismantle that office.

He said Australians viewed unions as irrelevant and were choosing not to join them, a trend that started under former Labor prime minister Bob Hawke.

SMH

No, the reasons people aren't joining the unions is because they still have an old-fashioned view of them, and the government scare campaign over many years has wormed its way into the minds of the populace. The unions are not good at positive self-promotion.

Very few unions are as militant as they were. Because over the years they were achieving many of the goals they aimed for. But now, they have a higher profile because the government is systematically eroding their achievements. My grandfather must be rolling over in his grave. (He was heavily involved in unions. Actually even got a mention in a book about them - the name of which escapes me at present.) People started leaving the unions when Hawke was PM because they had yet to catch up with the general feelings of the public. But now they have.

Personally, I don't think much can be achieved nowdays by going on strike. Because unlike in my grandfather's era, there is less of a feeling of community in the population. If people went on strike back then, other people would support them and the reasons for the strike. People wouldn't become scabs because they knew they faced ostracisation, which doesn't happen so much now because big-business has such a foothold in the minds of the public and all people seem to care about is profit over the well-being of the people who help achieve that profit.

The public has become complacent. And now we are facing the consequences.

"I don't think anyone would have thought that in 2007 it would be credible for Kevin Rudd to go to an election with 70 per cent of his frontbench made up of former union officials, and that would be a dramatic increase in the number of union officials that, say, Bob Hawke had," he said.

Irrelevant. I'll keep saying it - you must be a union member to be in the ALP*. So naturally the chances of the bulk of the frontbench being former union officials is high. Being a union official is a politicised position. It is a natural stepping stone for someone in the ALP who wants to make a difference in the government. End of story.

Just because a politician is a former union official it does not mean that they will allow themselves to be unfairly influenced by the unions. They know that come the next election, if people are unhappy with their performance, they will be given the boot - so in a way, their involvement with the union movement can be seen as something that prevents them from making extreme choices.

The ACTU has hit back at a Liberal Party campaign highlighting the union affiliations of Labor's frontbench team, saying it is insulting to working families.

ACTU president Sharan Burrow said a television advertisement released yesterday by the Liberals was wrong to suggest unions were anti-business.

The ad was also insulting to the millions of Australians whose job security and living standards were protected by unions.

"The job of all unions is to protect secure, well-paid employment for Australian working families," she said.

"To achieve this we need profitable businesses that value their workers. (my empahsis)

Workers who are valued are happy. Happy workers are more productive. This means that businesses achieve more.

I'll concede that not all business will use WorkChoices as a means to take advantage of their workers. But there are those that will. And until you can guarantee that no workers will be unfairly treated, you cannot write off the unions. An agency set up by the government should not be relied on as the only organisation that will ensure that worker's rights are protected.

The government scare campaign will continue. You've probably seen the latest bit of propaganda by now. See it here if you've not.



Labor have hit back with Rudd calling out Howard's scare campaign with a "Fresh Ideas" ad.

*apparently this is untrue. As I said in my comment - a number of years ago before I'd gotten around to joining the QPSU, I rang the ALP and was informed I'd need to be a union member. Is this a recent thing? Can anyone enlighten?

But I don't believe that it makes my comments any less valid. Given that the ALP is traditionally aligned with the unions, it is hardly a surprise that most, if not all, of the pollies have union affiliations of some description.

The kids are alright

Published by William Bowe at 9:30 pm under General

“YouTube generation is poised to deliver the killer blow to John Howard’s election chances”, read the headline in Sunday’s Sun-Herald. The evidence: polling agency Taverner’s remarkable finding that Labor held a 73-27 lead among Sydney and Melbourne voters aged 18 to 29.

Full post at The Poll Bludger