A Tainted View 11.03.07: Australian Election Coverage
Posted by Andy Bracken on 11.03.2007
The latest comings and goings of the election campaign, featuring pork barreling, preference deals, propaganda and Satan's minions.
Interesting fact: There is a certain politician who is going to be reading this that is positively PRAYING that their name doesn't appear in this column. That person can relax- Bracken keeps his word.
I am allowed to say this, though. My thoughts regarding Costello's chances of succeeding Howard were close enough to the truth, and apparently Costello is also fully aware of this. Speculation abounds that Costello has decided that his only realistic chance to sit in the big chair is if the Liberals hold on by a wafer thin margin, and that Howard loses Bennelong. Even then, the odds are that he won't last long before the first challenge.
Poor Peter. I have been told that he is personally a pretty nice bloke, but as his political ideology is kind of offensive to me, I won't shed any tears for him. Besides, he has been in the game long enough to enjoy a nice fat pension that I'm sure will soften the blow when he does throw it in.
This week was great for me personally. Aside from having a member of parliament say nice things to me, I actually got to see rainfall for the first time in six months or so. I love winter, and when you don't have to go to a job every day waking up to the same f-ing weather every single f-ing day gets to be a bit monotonous. There is a definite downside to endless sunny days.
Before I jump into the election stuff, I wanted to comment on another subject that is close to my heart. If you have read me for any length of time, you will know that I have more than a passing interest in the automotive world. This week, news broke that Chrysler has announced another 10,000 lay offs, following on from the 13,000 jobs lost in the last round of cuts.
For those that don't know the history, Chrysler was bought a few years ago by Mercedes (although at the time it was cunningly disguised as a "merger"), who then haemorrhaged cash on the US carmaker. After donating their platforms and engineering prowess to trying to turn Chrysler around (and creating some of the more unique looking cars of recent years), Mercedes threw in the towel and offloaded the loss making arm to a private equity company. As is the case with equity firms, their first strategy to return to profitability was to start trying to cut the fat.
The pains being suffered by the US auto industry is a prime example of the dangers of slewing workplace relations too far in one direction. As opposed to the case in Australia over the past few years, instead of the advantage being held by the employers, the problems in the US auto industry are largely the result of unions wielding too much power.
It is no coincidence that all of the big three are losing money hand over fist. All are subject to prohibitively expensive redundancy conditions, and all of them have been forced into the position of having a workforce that they can't afford. Ford and GM have lost tens of billions of dollars between them over the past few years, and Chrysler only exists because it has been propped up by their former owners. Conversely, a company like Toyota, who put out consistent, reliable models year after year, has a profit of billions each year.
The Ford empire has already started to crumble. Aston-Martin has been sold, Jaguar and Land Rover are both up for sale, and I doubt it will be long before Volvo is spun off. The restriction of development funding for international Ford brands will kill pretty much every major overseas market except for Europe, leaving Ford struggling to maintain even third place in global sales.
As for GM, I doubt it will be too long before you see a consortium of equity operators taking control of the company, and from that point anything can happen. On the good side, should a future private equity owner start looking around for divisions to sell off, I would assume that GM Holden will be right up the list, given that it is probably as close to profitability as any other part of the company. An independent Holden would be a good thing, after the obvious initial pains.
Anyway, you didn't come here to hear me prattle on about cars, so let's get into the latest election news.
The Best Feedback Question I Have Ever Been Asked
From Mark (Last name withheld by request):
OK, so I get that you are attacking the government because you want Howard out. I also get why you want him gone (not that I agree with you).
My question is this. If you were running the Liberal campaign, how would you turn them around?
Awesome question. Makes a great change from feebs ripping on me for being a union "stooge".
When I first received this email, I really wanted to get my teeth into the question. Since then, I have actually written (and deleted) three different strategy outlines. The problem is, after each different method that I came up with, I re-read it and came to the conclusion that it still wouldn't get the government over the line.
(If you're interested, my first idea was to give up the fight to get a two-part preferred victory, and essentially pork barrel the holy hell out of the twenty most marginal coalition seats. The next idea was to win the vital under-30-year-old vote by offering a dollar-for-dollar match on land purchases for 18-30 year old first home buyers, coupled with a means-tested interest rate offset should the rates rise above current levels- incredibly irresponsible fiscally, but it would attract a massive number of younger voters. The third idea was a good, old-fashioned diversion, by committing to a large defence equipment purchase due to some newly identified regional threat, thus appealing to the same fear trigger that has worked for the coalition in the past. Obviously, the three ideas were all fleshed out a bit more than I've stated here, and the crux of each of them was that they were going to be empty promises that weren't realistically able to be fulfilled. The end part of the three strategies was that they would all fall into the old "non-core promise" category, but would get them over the line in this election.)
None of these would be enough for the coalition to hold on. At this stage of the campaign, my honest feelings are that there is nothing that the coalition can really do to street ahead of the opposition. In effect, the election is Labor's to lose.
Don't misunderstand me- I am certainly not saying that the coalition can't win. My point is that if the coalition does pull it off, it will be because Labor has made some sort of enormous error that lets the government win. The Liberals can keep the pressure on the best they can, but they won't retain government unless Labor slips up in a major way.
My interpretation of the polling trends tells me that most of the community has already made up their minds. The electorate simply doesn't trust Howard anymore, they don't like Costello, Abbott, Ruddock and Andrews, Downer has never really been particularly well respected by the public, and the newer ministers like Turnbull and Hockey still come across as underlings, rather than rising stars. They just don't have the personalities that can overcome the well-crafted (if not particularly well-deserved) public image of Rudd.
This election is about chickens coming home to roost. Eleven years of broken promises and a questionable social dividend from coalition policies have led to the current public mood that Howard and his crew have run their race, and that it is time for a new government to restore a bit of the necessary balance in the country. As long as Labor continue to present a realistic alternative government, they have the public sympathy sewn up.
THE Family First party's sole senator says it is absolutely outrageous that Labor is making a preference deal with the Greens, due to the Greens' drug policies.
Greens leader Bob Brown said earlier today that his party and Labor were close to announcing a deal in which the Greens would preference Labor in the lower house in all seats except in Tasmania, and Labor would preference the Greens in the Senate.
"It is absolutely outrageous to think that Kevin Rudd would want to preference the Greens, knowing their stance on drugs," Senator Fielding told ABC television.
"Whether there was a deal or not you've got to ask the question why would Labor want to see the Greens holding the balance of power in Australia?
"Most people would think that was absolutely strange that Labor is saying that they're for families, for small business, and want the Greens to hold the balance of power in Australia.
"That's jumping out of the frying pan into the fire."
But Senator Fielding said he was talking to all parties, including Pauline Hanson's anti-immigration Pauline's United Australia Party, about preferences.
Senator Brown responded that the Greens' policies on drugs were for harm minimisation.
"I'm a doctor. I hate drug addiction. But we've got to have sensible policies to meet it and we will make sensible policies."
The rush between the parties to come to preference deals never fails to amuse me.
Two things about preference deals astound me. The first is that there is a huge amount of voters who don't have the slightest idea what the deals actually entail. They hear the term bandied about every three years, and understand that it involves some sort of mutually beneficial agreement, but don't realise just what currency they are using to bargain with.
For those of you who don't know what the deals actually mean, allow me to educate you. Preference deals cover the distribution of second and subsequent preferences in the House of Representatives and the Senate, but in two very different ways. (Note: I am assuming that you have a decent knowledge of the actual preferential voting system. If you don't, Google it- otherwise, this isn't going to make much sense to you.)
As most of you will know, as a voter you have two options on the Senate ballot paper. You can either just place the number "1" in the box that corresponds to the party of your choice above the line, or you can number all of the boxes below the line sequentially.
If you choose the latter, the preferences are distributed according to the order that you have chosen. Should you choose the former, your preferences are distributed according to the nominated wishes of the party that you have endorsed. Essentially, you have voted to give your favoured party the ability to do with your vote what they wish.
As much as I distrust political parties at the best of times, there is a very important advantage in giving the order of your preferences to the party of your choice. The upside is the fact that voting becomes far more simple. With a dozen or more parties contesting the vote, and each party having up to six candidates (not to mention the independent aligned candidates and the unaligned candidates, you could be unlucky enough to have 60 or more candidates to number. Given the attention spans of the modern human being, I would suggest that forcing everyone to number every candidate would lead to a massive increase in the informal vote. It provides a simple option.
Of course, the simple option is designed for the simple person. If you are to be truly informed and fully participate in our democracy, a few minutes to number some boxes shouldn't be too much of a task. Voting above the line, in the vast majority of cases, is an exercise in laziness.
There is, however, a more noble motivation to voting "above the line". In some elections (and the upcoming vote is a notable example) there is a more prevalent need to change or retain government. In those cases, directed preferences become a lot more significant, in that that unitary direction lessens the chances of preferences assisting the party that has your support, by diluting the preference vote away from the party that you want to see lose. Should the preferences not be more completely channelled to your party's second choice, the people you don't want to win get a leg up.
Now, to turn the above jargon into a practical example, take the coming election as an example. The issues around this election have polarised the electorate, so there is a good chance you are either completely for the Liberals, or you are dedicated to a change of government. The chances that you are undecided are small.
Assume you want the current government to retain power. Should the Liberals not win all of the Senate seats in your state (pretty safe bet, by the by) you will want the political allies of the government to win. If all of the second preferences for your party of choice are directed to the same candidates, the chances that the second candidate wins a seat is good. If those preferences are split amongst a 20 or more other candidates, the chances are that another, less favourable candidate will get their quota and win a seat. Obviously, directing the preferences can safeguard your wishes as to the attitude of the Senate, if not the exact composition.
Senate preferences are a powerful thing, too. Well over 90% of Senate votes are cast by the "above the line" method- which is a huge amount of power to use at the preference deal negotiating table.
The House of Representatives are a different story. As all voters have to number all boxes, the value of preference deals should be far less- and, to be honest, it is. That said, the power it wields is still more than it should.
Preference deals in the House of Reps involve how-to-vote cards. Those little cards that people from the various parties accost you with as you enter the polling booth have a mock ballot paper with the boxes numbered in the way that the party has negotiated. Of course, you are free to vote however you see fit, but the very existence of the how-to-vote cards would demonstrate that they have an effect on the voting intention of the masses.
Simply put, a decent group of the electorate follow the cards, which adds value to the negotiated preferences. They are certainly not as efficient for the parties as the Senate system, but they do have a great effect.
That effect is the second aspect to the vote deals that amazes me. Personally, I have a real moral objection to the presence of partisans at the polling booths handing out these cards. My view is that democracy is served best when the parties are restricted to telling you why you should vote for them, and letting them make up their own mind. Simply telling people how to vote on the way into the booth is not only lazy campaigning, but should be an affront to an intelligent person.
I know I sound like a broken record, but I'll repeat what I have said previously- the fact that political parties put so much stock into their preference deals (and why the same parties fear the deals made by their opposition) quite succinctly demonstrates the low regard political parties have for the collective intelligence and dedication of the voters. Unfortunately, the fact that their strategies have so much success would indicate that they are absolutely accurate in their views. That, unfortunately, is an indictment on us as voters.
I am certainly not surprised that Family First have lashed out against the preference deal between the ALP and The Greens. Even if the government holds on to the control of the lower house, maintaining their support in the Senate is going to be nearly impossible. For the likely recipients of those extra votes to swap preferences between them effectively shuts out Family First from greatly expanding their Senate representation. I would have been far more surprised if they didn't pipe up.
Predictably, the hypocrisy of this wailing is that Family First themselves have admitted talking to other parties about preference deals. I can assure you, Family First is the last group I would be swapping preferences. The Greens have a ridiculous fiscal policy and a good-direction-but-slightly-too-far social policy. Family First have an invisible fiscal policy and a restrictive, stupidly conservative social platform. I'd pick the Greens every time- regardless of how bad the Greens might be as a multi-issue party. Nothing more complicated than being the lesser of two evils.
Of course, perhaps Family First should turn their attention to internal problems for a while…
The Devil Claims Another One
Confession: I get genuine pleasure from seeing those that claim the moral high ground lose their careers over a "moral" scandal. As an avid politics watcher, when the victim of that scandal represents a pontificating, holier-than-thou party that thrill is only intesnified. Very few parties in Australian history fit that description more than Steve Fielding's Family First Party.
I did a piece on the minor parties a while ago, in which I adequately articulated my views on Family First. The idea that a religious party could exert any influence over the political landscape of the country is particularly egregious to me, as it undermines the very foundation of a secular country. Besides, religion and politics don't seem to mix well in other parts of the world, do they?
That doesn't mean that they haven't been reasonably effective, and that they don't have the chance to be successful in the future. The way that they have managed to slant the odds in favour of their representatives in Australian bloody Idol is proof enough of that. They know how to organise, and they have an entire congregation of mindless merinos to do their bidding. A powerful base, to be sure.
But, as the first paragraph of this segment would suggest, it is their presumed moral superiority that really gets my hackles up. A general rule of thumb that has served me well is that the louder the moralistic bleating out of a political party, the greater the likelihood that they have their own skeletons squirreled away in their proverbial closet. Needless to say, Family First hasn't let me down.
FAMILY First is reeling over a pornography scandal involving one of its election candidates.
Andrew Quah was disendorsed as a candidate and expelled from Victorian Senator Steve Fielding's pro-family party yesterday after the Sunday Herald Sun uncovered his indiscretions.
Mr Quah, 22, had earlier admitted to posing for two images, one partly undressed and the other clutching his private parts, attached to an email circulating across the country.
He said he could not rule out being responsible for producing a third image attached to the email featuring graphic shots of a man's genitalia.
Mr Quah yesterday said he did not create the email nor had he written the text in it.
He believed he had been set up by political opponents.
But Mr Quah admitted to downloading porn on the web as recently as two weeks ago.
The sleaze scandal is a big blow for Family First, whose key platforms include tackling internet pornography.
On Friday, Mr Quah said: "The first two (images) are definitely from me and the third one might have been from me."
He added: "Yes, I've downloaded pornography, maybe a couple of weeks ago."
Now, for the record, I have no issue of a consenting adult looking up some dirty photos on the net (provided those dirty photos contain only OTHER consenting adults and, if that's what blows your hair back, inanimate objects), and similarly have no issue with a consenting adult posting his or her own picture on whatever corner of the net that he or she wishes. When you go to the polls telling everyone, "vote for me because we are good, clean, MORAL folk who will save you from the dirty deviants who look at online porn and like the homosexuals" and THEN get found out as an email flasher, well- you deserve everything you get. And I will enjoy your very public, very humiliating fall.
I guess we are now just waiting for the tearful reconciliation, where I'm sure the devil will be soundly defamed and held liable. Good times.
The poll of about 1700 people recorded a two-party preferred margin of 54%-46% in favour of the ALP, down from 58-42 last week. The preferred Prime Minister numbers show a 48-41 margin in favour of Rudd.
I'm sure that the government is going to take heart from this poll, even though the numbers still suggest a shellacking should they hold up. Quite simply, if the this week's polls came back with similar numbers to last week, the coalition's race would have been run and lost.
I know I was quite glib about last week's numbers, but the fact is that the split demonstrated by this week's poll seems far more reliable than last week. Over the past year, the polls have been quite remarkable in their consistency. Aside from a couple of rogue polls, the ALP's numbers have held steady in the 53-56% range, with their primary vote sitting between 48-50%. Those numbers, from what I have seen and heard, seem about accurate.
Of course, if you read the linked analysis from Dennis Shanahan, the government should be doing cartwheels over these numbers. Of course, Mr. Shanahan is a political analyst for The Australian Newspaper, a publication that is so transparent in their bias that other journalists (not so) affectionately refer to it as "The Government Gazette".
(Seriously, their editorial slant is almost as obvious as mine. Of course, I have made my bias, as well as the reasons for my bias, quite clear. They masquerade as a news service. Big difference.)
The government won't be holding any parties over these poll numbers. The fact is, these numbers reflect the absolute best case scenario for the government, while they also reflect a realistic baseline support for the ALP.
How do I know? Easy. One poll can have a distorted sample. Two polls can be a bit of bad luck. A mass of polls, conducted by different pollsters with different polling methods at different times, held over the course of a year or more, all giving results in the same range? The chances of an unreliable result are astronomical.
The other stark fact is that there hasn't been a single poll that has put the coalition any closer than this week's poll. If all of the "rogue" polls (those outside the normal range, if my use of that term has lost you) all fall one way, the obvious inference is that the margin of error would tend to slide toward the party that has had the advantage. If there is any inaccuracy in this week's Newspoll, I would wager that the margin of error would flatter the government, rather than the opposition.
This poll isn't a comeback, but merely a correction. The government is well behind, and they aren't getting the slightest bit of traction in the electorate at the moment. They need to find a new campaign focal point, and they need it very soon.
Since the Newspoll was released, AC Nielsen has released their latest poll setting the 2PP margin at 55-45, with the primary vote giving a 48%-41% lead to the ALP. Evidently, the "rogue poll" theory has more than a little merit.
Equally as troubling to the government is polling taken within the seat of Eden-Monaro this week, indicating that the sitting Liberal member, Gary Nairn, is trailing by twelve points. Eden-Monaro is known to the pollsters as the most reliable bellwether seat in the country, and is seen as a strong indicator of the likely winner.
I completely realise that the government need to negotiate the precipice of publicly being apathetic to opinion poll numbers, while taking whatever encouragement that they can find from them. Unfortunately, these polls don't represent he rapture that the right-wing pundits would lead you to believe. They reflect a pretty severe defeat- even if it is a slightly smaller defeat than last week.
Propaganda- Thirty Seconds at a Time
To my mind, electoral advertising is far more influential than it really should be. The notion that a large percentage of the population would have their voting intentions swayed by thirty second grabs full of nothing but half-truths and misinformation (and I'm talking about BOTH sides of politics) is simply disheartening.
I know I tend to beat up on the collective intellect of the general public, but it is for good reason. I just don't understand why political parties are allowed to not only get away with treating the electorate with such disdain, but actively profit from it.
Regardless, the fact remains that party advertising IS extraordinarily effective, which provides more than adequate proof that the politicos' opinions of us is disappointingly accurate. Being that we all seem to be so ready to let our intelligence be insulted so readily by pointless advertising, I thought that I'd review the latest wave of advertising by the various parties, and analyse their likely effects.
Let's give the incumbents the first crack at our evidently malleable psyche.
The government's advertising thus far has been unashamedly negative in nature. They have concentrated on two areas, firstly the alleged union domination of the ALP front bench, as well as the ministerial inexperience of the parliamentary Labor party. These advertisements have been interspersed with spots designed to hammer home their campaign slogan, "Go for Growth", and their stated goal of reducing unemployment to 3%.
As mentioned in my previous segment, this campaign has been largely ineffective. Despite the saturation levels of the government advertising, there has been little movement in the polls, indicating that the message is not penetrating the electorate.
So, in a particularly baffling move, the government has shifted their focus from trying to elicit fear from the public based on the union connections of the federal opposition, and have now decided to completely change tack to trying to promote fear based on the union affiliations of the various state governments.
Huh?
You know, for the life of me, I can't understand WHY someone in the federal Liberal executive could sit down with their advertising gurus and be convinced that the best way to score point off the federal opposition is to try and attack the state governments. It just beggars belief.
There have been different advertisements produced for the each individual state, but I'll show you the Western Australian version:
Let's look at this point by point, shall we? The advertising copy is in italics, with my comments following:
Let's face the facts: Western Australia's hospitals are in a mess. And who's responsible for this mess? Western Australian Health Minister, Jim McGinty- and ex-trade union official.
Yes, PART of the blame can be assigned to Jim McGinty, and yes, he's an ex-trade union official. An even BIGGER part of the blame can be placed on the head of the federal Liberal government, who, over the past ten years, has introduced patient co-payments to GP visits, putting them out of the reach of some of the community. The flow on effect of that policy has been the diversion of huge numbers of patients that previously visited a GP to hospital emergency departments. This has moved the cost of treating these patients from the Commonwealth to the states, and has directly caused emergency departments around the country to consistently overflow to the point of collapse.
The biggest problem with the health system in Western Australia (and, for that matter, every other state in the country) is that the federal government collects the taxation earmarked for funding health, and (unevenly) distributes it to the states, who are tasked with then funding the shortfall, and managing the system. We then get a situation where when the system collapses, the state blames the feds and the feds blame the states, and nothing gets done.
You know, maybe the answer is for the commonwealth to make some sort of commitment to stop the endless buck-passing and accept final responsibility for the hospital system. If only someone thought of doing this.
Oh- wait. Somebody did:
You know, with the complete clusterfuck that is the Liberals' campaign, you would almost believe that they are TRYING to lose this election. Almost.
Let's go on with the original advert.
…Just like another ex-union official, Eric Ripper, who is responsible for a shortage of police, nurses and teachers through lack of funding.
Eric Ripper? You are trying to win points against the federal opposition by taking shots at Eric Ripper? The guy hardly has a profile in Western Australia, and under his reign as Treasurer WA has seen record surpluses and growth- you know, the same qualities that you fellate Costello over. He isn't hated, and he certainly isn't the guy who catches the blame in the Western Australian community for Teachers, Nurses and Police Officers. That blame tends to sit with the Education Minister, the Health Minister and the Police Minister. Funny that, eh?
Nobody cares about Ripper. The only thing that mentioning his name would achieve would be to remind people that he actually exists.
That said, the reason why we don't have enough nurses and teachers is that not enough people are being TRAINED as teachers and nurses. That is the fault of the tertiary education system- again, a responsibility of the FEDERAL government. The Police shortage is dues to the fact that there is little incentive for people to make the sacrifices necessary to serve on the force for $50,000, when the same person can get $150,000 for working a cushy job in the booming mining sector.
Unless the Federal government is advocating doubling the pay of entry-level police officers, the problem won't get solved. I wonder how economists will react to that idea?
But it could get worse, because soon there could be a Rudd Labor government in Canberra…
Oh good. At least now we're talking about the federal opposition. You know- their actual OPPONENTS?
…With 70% of the ministers being ex-trade union officials with hardly any other experience, and if that happens there will be an even bigger mess. And Western Australia, you will pay for it.
You know, I'd love to hear John Howard detail his adult work experience, or his experience in the real world, where you have to be independent and work for your own living. Or did he live in his mummy's house until he got married in his thirties?
(In case you're wondering, John Howard joined the Liberal Party at the age of 18, where he served in various functions including as the President of the Young Liberals. The man did live with mummy right up until he got married, and first ran for parliament at the age of 28. His only notable achievement was being a political party member. So much for experience, eh?)
As a point of comparison, a the same percentage of the coalition front bench consists of lawyers and bankers. I would wager that as a rule, unionists are far more representative of Joe Public than a group of millionaire barristers and merchant bankers.
As for the risk of "an even bigger mess"? Would that be a regime where housing is completely unaffordable, where we are in an ill-advised, failing war in a country that posed no danger to us, where people are going to the wall due to interest rate rises that they were promised wouldn't happen, where there aren't enough trained doctors to keep the nation healthy?
The bigger picture is even more astounding. Every different state has their own version of these ads, and every version blames the states for the condition of their respective hospital systems. Now, anyone with the slightest analytical ability would figure out that if the two layers of government have failed hospital systems throughout the country, then the likely culprit is the common denominator- the Howard federal government. While the states certainly have to shoulder a part of the blame, the major contributing factor to the mess that is the Australian health system is the policies brought in by the Howard government, that were based on a silly ideological opposition to what was a functioning public health service.
Health is one area where Rudd has Howard dead to rights. By accepting responsibility for the improvement of hospitals, Rudd has answered one of the most common wishes in the electorate, that the various governments stop trying to assign blame, and just fix the f-ing thing.
Hate to say it (well, I don't really, but you know what I mean), but this advertising campaign is poorly conceived and even more poorly executed.
As for the ALP, their latest ad campaign is also negative, addressing the potential for another wave of extreme IR laws should the coalition be returned:
This is the difference between a well considered spot and an ill-considered one. While both are decidedly negative, the ALP's message is backed up with actual, incontrovertible fact. Nick Minchin DID say that there would have to be another wave of WorkChoices, Peter Costello DID say that he would like to remove every protection except for a common minimum wage, and Costello also said that he would advocate removing unfair dismissal protection for all employees. The fact that Costello has been nominated as the successor to the PM during the coming term also indicates that it is a well-trained shot.
I will say this, though- should the ALP run these ads for an extended period of time, then they would be falling into the same trap as the government. People know that WorkChoices represents an assault on their job security, so continually beating them over the head with that fact is going to achieve nothing. Labor has the image of being the dynamic alternative, and it is an image that can dissolve frighteningly quickly if they harp on it. Run the ads for a few days now, and then shelve them until the last few days before the ballot.
Hell- what would I know. I form my opinion based on a research and a considered opinion, rather than bullet points and bullshit. Somehow I don't think I quite fit the target demographic.
Quick Hits
The brain-dead, self-important, roly-poly nitwit Joe McDonald has been expelled from the ALP at the behest of parliamentary leader Kevin Rudd. McDonald, who has done his level best to give the trade union movement a bad name (along with his CFMEU boss, the equally hypocritical Kevin Reynolds), was forced out after he refused to keep his damn fool mouth shut after being acquitted of charges stemming from a fracas at a Perth building site.
Reynolds and McDonald are the absolute worst face of the union movement. They are nothing more than champagne socialists posing as class warriors masquerading as worker's representatives, and they represent mere political extremists. They are completely irrelevant, using intimidation and boorishness to create an income base that they try (and often fail) to use as a political bargaining chip.
After McDonald's expulsion, Reynolds whaled in with empty threats to withdraw funding to the Labor Party. Newsflash for all of you- Reynolds needs to use that money to try and retain the façade of influence. He obviously isn't going to be writing a cheque to the Liberals any time soon, and there isn't enough money in the CFMEU's coffers to make a third party more powerful.
My advice to the two dumplings- pipe down and thank your lucky stars that Rudd has a good chance of turfing Howard. Rudd may not bow down to you as your delusion suggests he should, but he won't be as bad for your members as Howard has been.
Of course, that advice would only matter if your members were your actually your priority, rather than just yourselves. Silly me.
And the same goes for your dopey wife.
Nationals leader Mark Vaile has insisted that the coalition has used it's Senate majority "responsibly". He said this in response to an advert produced by the ALP, Greens and Democrats calling for voters to ensure that the coalition doesn't get control of the Senate again.
I could go on about the raft of legislative changes that the government has introduced without any sort of mandate (with WorkChoices being right at the top of that list), but I'm sure there is no need to beat that dead horse. I'll just say this- whilst I think that the coalition has a small chance of retaining control of the lower house, they have absolutely no chance at all of keeping control of the Senate. The voters will tell Vaile just how "responsible" they have been.
This next one is a contender for the single funniest bit of news that has broken in weeks. The Department of Workplace Relations is facing a fine for breaching their own laws, after trying to stop their employees from taking leave to attend a protest against the draconian IR laws.
The same government department that is entrusted with enforcing these laws (and, more importantly, advising common workers as to their "rights" under them) has tried to use them to illegally restrict the political expression of their staff. Kind of makes a mockery of the idea that the workers of the nation don't really need a collective employee organisation to protect their rights and fight for them, doesn't it?
Unions are entirely necessary. Just not unions run by idiots like the two mentioned a few paragraphs above.
And We're Done
Phew- I'm way late. I'd better wrap this up and get it posted before it turns into next week's column. Happy trails, everyone, and I'll see you back here in a few days.
STAY CURRENT