Poll loss the end for ALP

[Hawkk]

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/01/16/1168709754639.html

Poll loss the end for ALP, unions

THE loser of this year's federal election will struggle to survive as a political force, the former Labor leader Kim Beazley says.

In his first interview since losing the leadership six weeks ago, Mr Beazley told the Herald yesterday that a Labor loss would entrench John Howard's industrial relations laws.

The union movement would be wiped out within a decade and "that would remove one of the essential underpinnings of the Labor Party".

"Underneath the issue of fair treatment for Australian workers is the right for Australian workers to be represented by a union," he said. "That is under major attack in this legislation, an attack so severe it would be difficult to see a recognisable union movement surviving a decade.

"If the Labor Party is not able to get in there and change these industrial laws, the whole character of working Australia will change substantially, and to the Labor Party's detriment."

If Mr Howard lost, "there is a serious question mark over the future of the Liberal Party". Labor would win the NSW election in March and Mr Howard would remain the only governing Liberal. "After some years of Labor state governments, Liberal oppositions are still struggling to get a third of the seats in state parliaments."

Mr Beazley noted the state Liberal branches were already in poor shape and if Mr Howard lost the election, the Liberals would not govern anywhere.

"They lose the election, they lose Howard and people are going to question the survivability of the Liberal Party," he said. "They haven't got much of an organisation. They are very vulnerable to being out of office and all sorts of lunatics and crazies can take over the Liberal Party, and they will."

Mr Beazley, who lost his job in a leadership spill on December 4, confirmed yesterday he would resign from politics come the election, likely to be in October, and return to academia. "I used to be a teacher at university and that's what I'll be again," he said. He has had expressions of interest but has yet to follow any up.

Mr Beazley said Labor would have won the election if he had remained leader but he believed it would still win under Kevin Rudd. "I think Howard's played out."

Mr Beazley predicted a "quietish and logical" campaign because Mr Rudd and Mr Howard were conservatives. "Both Kevin and Howard, in personal demeanour and presentation, stick to the centre. Neither of them are histrionic when it comes to making a political argument."

Mr Beazley said he was not criticising Mr Rudd.

"I happen to regard myself as the same. I don't think he's that much different to me."

Losing the leadership and his brother dying the same day had been traumatic and he had not adequately processed all that had happened.

He did not envisage playing a significant role in this election year. "I'm very conscious of the fact that the political side of my career is over and Kevin doesn't need my help. The only useful role I can play is encouraging my supporters, and they don't need much encouragement, to get in behind the new leaders.

"I'm just very sad - that's the truth of the matter - but I've been pepped up by that excellent slogan from the 1943 election campaign: 'No time for bitterness. We're too busy.'

[Gary Shadforth]

Kim is so right.

Unfortunately Australia will be the loser should it eventuate the demise of either of the major political parties. A democratic nation only has the zeal as is the strength of her federal opposition whether it is the ALP or the Coalition.

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d107/GaryShadforth/002GaryShadforthKimBeazleyALPDinner.jpg

Kim and myself at an ALP dinner last year.

[RustyHawk]

Well done Gary! (At least Kim's not giving one of those fake smiles, seems a geniune sort of bloke) --- you look a bit like an ex pollie...... only joking. u do look like an ex journo though........

Cheers

[Gary Shadforth]

.

Thanks, Rusty.

[RustyHawk]

There you go Hawk Dork.. you can sleep soundly now, the counter point.

From today's The Age

Electoral loss will mean death of Liberal Party
By Norman Abjorensen
January 19, 2007

In a few weeks the Liberal Party will raise its collective glasses in celebration of 11 years in office at the national level, but it might well be the last celebration: the party, in both senses, could soon be over.

It is by no means inconceivable that the party that under John Howard has so dominated the political stage for more than a decade and through four election wins could simply fall apart in the event of a loss at this year's federal election.

How could this happen? Just as the former Soviet Union simply collapsed because there was nothing holding it together, so too will the Liberal Party if it loses the only asset it has - federal office. The party, as a whole, is in a parlous state; the state branches are weak and demoralised, and true power resides in the federal secretariat in Canberra and the Prime Minister's office.

Just how impotent the Liberals are outside the federal scene will be demonstrated in March when the most incompetent and accident-prone Government in the country, Morris Iemma's Labor Government in NSW, will be returned, albeit with a majority somewhat less than its present 17 seats. Government appears not to be in the sights of the NSW Liberals, now controlled by a hard right-wing element whose main concern appears to be a moral crusade against anyone and anything remotely liberal.

Elsewhere, the Liberals in Western Australia, where another incompetent and possibly corrupt Labor Government rules, are a divided and squabbling rabble; in Victoria they are still licking their wounds from last year's thumping defeat; in South Australia and Tasmania they are irrelevant, and in Queensland, invisible as well as irrelevant.

John Howard has exerted more influence than did Robert Menzies on the Liberal Party as a whole. Whereas Menzies regarded it as a truly federal body with the state branches autonomous, both constitutionally and in practice, Howard has been the great centraliser. For example, all state directors of the party have had to be approved by Howard himself before appointment - the closest thing to a politburo Australia has seen.

Of course, this has paid off handsomely for Howard. Not only has the possibility of potentially damaging dissent emanating from state branches and prominent party officials been eliminated, the party machine itself has been mobilised to oppose elements within the party, be they MPs or officials, who are regarded as not sufficiently pro-Howard. The well-organised but ultimately unsuccessful campaign against Petro Georgiou last year in Kooyong is a case in point.

What this has meant in practice is that even though state branches of the party are festering sores of discontent, Howard's forces have been able to impose a tight discipline in the interests of unity. "Don't rock the boat" has become the key mantra.

Howard of all people knows the price of disunity; it was this that cost him the prime ministership in his first tilt at the 1987 election, and then subsequently the party leadership two years later. Public disunity was electoral death to the party in those days, and Howard learned the lesson well.

But it has come at a cost. If the Liberals lose this year, they will be out of office in every jurisdiction in the land; holding national office has supplanted all else as the party's fundamental raison d'etre. Once that is taken away, all hell will break loose in the form of years of pent-up dissent, disillusionment and frustration.

Even the most cursory glance at history shows that non-Labor has not adapted to losses of office. The Nationalists did not survive defeat in 1929 nor did the Liberals' immediate predecessor, the United Australia Party after it lost office in 1941. Had Whitlam's government not self-immolated in 1975 before it was sacked, another electoral defeat for the Liberals would have seen their simmering discontent escalate to schism, even greater than the loss of Don Chipp and his supporters. And, more recently, who can forget the long period of infighting and instability that followed Hawke's victory in 1983, as the wets and the dries did battle?

Howard has been, by his own admission, the most conservative Liberal leader ever; he has also presided over a party that now openly calls itself conservative (a term, incidentally, discouraged and shunned by Menzies when it was suggested as a name for the new party). The Georgious and the Moylans, who have courageously opposed some of the Government's more extreme measures in regard to immigration detention, will be expected to be vocal, as will the other more timid members who have opted, or been persuaded, so far to hold their tongues; they might even find a modicum of common cause with what remains of the Australian Democrats.

It is not inconceivable that a realignment of sorts will take place, most probably involving the rise of a new centrist party. Is there, perhaps, a new Don Chipp in the wings biding his or her time?

A coalition defeat in 2007 will almost certainly herald a major realignment on the non-Labor side of politics, but it is problematic whether the Liberal Party, as now constituted, will survive.

Dr Norman Abjorensen is at the School of Social Sciences at the ANU. His book on leadership in the Liberal Party will be published in March.

What this has meant in practice is that even though state branches of the party are festering sores of discontent, Howard's forces have been able to impose a tight discipline in the interests of unity. "Don't rock the boat" has become the key mantra.

Howard of all people knows the price of disunity; it was this that cost him the prime ministership in his first tilt at the 1987 election, and then subsequently the party leadership two years later. Public disunity was electoral death to the party in those days, and Howard learned the lesson well.

But it has come at a cost. If the Liberals lose this year, they will be out of office in every jurisdiction in the land; holding national office has supplanted all else as the party's fundamental raison d'etre. Once that is taken away, all hell will break loose in the form of years of pent-up dissent, disillusionment and frustration.

Even the most cursory glance at history shows that non-Labor has not adapted to losses of office. The Nationalists did not survive defeat in 1929 nor did the Liberals' immediate predecessor, the United Australia Party after it lost office in 1941. Had Whitlam's government not self-immolated in 1975 before it was sacked, another electoral defeat for the Liberals would have seen their simmering discontent escalate to schism, even greater than the loss of Don Chipp and his supporters. And, more recently, who can forget the long period of infighting and instability that followed Hawke's victory in 1983, as the wets and the dries did battle?

Howard has been, by his own admission, the most conservative Liberal leader ever; he has also presided over a party that now openly calls itself conservative (a term, incidentally, discouraged and shunned by Menzies when it was suggested as a name for the new party). The Georgious and the Moylans, who have courageously opposed some of the Government's more extreme measures in regard to immigration detention, will be expected to be vocal, as will the other more timid members who have opted, or been persuaded, so far to hold their tongues; they might even find a modicum of common cause with what remains of the Australian Democrats.

It is not inconceivable that a realignment of sorts will take place, most probably involving the rise of a new centrist party. Is there, perhaps, a new Don Chipp in the wings biding his or her time?

A coalition defeat in 2007 will almost certainly herald a major realignment on the non-Labor side of politics, but it is problematic whether the Liberal Party, as now constituted, will survive.

Dr Norman Abjorensen is at the School of Social Sciences at the ANU. His book on leadership in the Liberal Party will be published in March.

[Hawkamania!]

Both parties are sucking the life out of the citizens of Australia :mad:.

[Hawk Dork]

Labor soars with Mr 65 per cent

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/labor-soars-with-mr-65-per-cent/2007/02/11/1171128813763.html

Quick someone send an ambulance to Hawkks house

[kolchak]

It's probably all BS.

[Hawk Dork]

It's probably all BS.
Do you think Hawkk just had indegestion ?

[MightyFighting]

Two parties enter.

One party leaves.

[hyperswivel]

I'm really excited about the Labor Party at the moment.
Rudd just seems to hit all the marks and everything he says drips with sincerity and humility.
He's making the calm and collected Howard look like a torrettes sufferer.

[Fabulous]

Mr Beazley predicted a "quietish and logical" campaign because Mr Rudd and Mr Howard were conservatives. "Both Kevin and Howard, in personal demeanour and presentation, stick to the centre. Neither of them are histrionic when it comes to making a political argument."


Perhaps Beazley would have been better predicting the old adage of "a week is a long time in politics".

[Hawk Dork]

Here is a good news story


If a federal election was held today, Prime Minister John Howard would lose his own seat, a new poll has found.




http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/pm-would-not-win-his-own-seat-poll/2007/02/19/1171733647023.html

[Hawkk]

Here is a good news story


If a federal election was held today, Prime Minister John Howard would lose his own seat, a new poll has found.




http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/pm-would-not-win-his-own-seat-poll/2007/02/19/1171733647023.html

RM inflating the Labor vote...it seems nothing changes ;)

[Hawk Dork]

You should have a coup up in the Qld Libs soon
I stayed with Jeffs mate up in Soveriegn Island last week, had a cup of tea with the future challenger.

[Fabulous]

You should have a coup up in the Qld Libs soon
I stayed with Jeffs mate up in Soveriegn Island last week, had a cup of tea with the future challenger.

Sure you were on the right island. Sounds more like Hope Island:rolleyes:

[Hawkk]

You should have a coup up in the Qld Libs soon
I stayed with Jeffs mate up in Soveriegn Island last week, had a cup of tea with the future challenger.

Bruce Flegg is a horrible leader, the sooner the QLD Libs get a new leader the better :thumbsu:

Having said that, their aren't too many promising Liberals coming through the State politics at all.

[Hawk Dork]

Bruce Flegg is a horrible leader, the sooner the QLD Libs get a new leader the better :thumbsu:

Having said that, their aren't too many promising Liberals coming through the State politics at all.
Dentist or Soldier are the 2 crunching the numbers.
Both not 2 impresive to this old watermelon

[Hawkk]

Dentist or Soldier are the 2 crunching the numbers.
Both not 2 impresive to this old watermelon

I used to live in Flegg's district (Moggill) back in the days he was my dentist, personally it wasn't the greatest dentist practice I’ve used…

The Queensland coalition has been a rabble for years, one wonders how much better both would fare if they merged and formed the new conservative party that was touted around last year...

Having said that, the QLD Labour party isn't much chop either, if the Liberals and Nationals got their act together I have no doubt that they could quite easily oust Beattie at the next election – there are so many loopholes in Beattie’s leadership that the Coalition – mostly through their own incompetence, have failed to make Labour accountable for.

Health anyone?

[Hawk Dork]

New guy is Chemist not dentist sorry. ( other guy is a ex soldier)
3 way tussle in the next few weeks

I hope he likes being in the opposition.

[frankc]

Both parties are sucking the life out of the citizens of Australia :mad:.

I wouldn't go that far. If you really look at both parties there isn't much difference fundamentally other than their IR positions. All other issues where both parties deviate are purely matters of opinion where the opposition always disagrees in an attempt to gain traction.

Furthermore, union membership has been declining for many years now with (I think) only 18% of those in the work force now union membership. Therefore out of 10 million Australian workers, only 1.8 million are union members with the majority of these probably for trade type industries. This is down from 40% 15 years before.

No matter who wins this election, I feel the union movement is ultimately dead. Particularly for those in skilled employment.

[Hawkk]

No matter who wins this election, I feel the union movement is ultimately dead. Particularly for those in skilled employment.

The Union movement has been dead for years - the only reason why the Unions still have a connection with the ALP is for nostalgic purposes. The ALP's opposition to the new IR laws was ultimately because of its connections with the Union movement - they knew if the laws were ratified it would spell an end to the movement, ironically under the new laws unemployment hasn't been lower since the 1960's and workers (in the whole) haven't been in better shape...

[Hawk Dork]

ironically under the new laws unemployment hasn't been lower since the 1960's and workers (in the whole) haven't been in better shape...

see http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/y...e#contentSwap1


Key findings of the research by Professor Peetz are:

* Women's pay has dropped significantly under the new IR laws with real average earnings for women in the private sector falling by 2.0% and a majority of award workers suffering a real wage cut averaging almost 1% under the new minimum wage setting process.

* Almost 20,000 workers are losing award coverage every month and are being put onto AWAs or other non-union 'agreements' that remove formerly protected award conditions including overtime, penalty rates, rest breaks and other important job conditions.

* The rate at which overtime is being removed by AWA individual contracts has doubled under the new IR laws and 82% of AWAs have reduced or abolished overtime pay. The research shows that 63% of AWAs are abolishing penalty rates; 64% axeing annual leave loading; 69% abolishing or reducing rest breaks; 73% reducing or abolishing public holiday payments; and 52% abolishing shift work loading.

* While there are approximately 400,000 AWA individual contracts in use - less than half the one million the Federal Government claims - the effect of the new IR laws have been keenly felt with up to 41% of workers saying they know of someone affected by the new laws and 39% of clerical and administrative workers reporting they feel more scared about their job now than before the laws came in.

The research also shows that the Federal Government has exaggerated the employment effects of the new IR laws and that jobs growth was higher in 1994 when protection from unfair dismissal was actually introduced than in the post-WorkChoices period.

Professor Peetz finds that there is no evidence of significant economic benefits of new IR laws and, in fact, labour productivity has so far declined.

[frankc]

see http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/y...e#contentSwap1


Key findings of the research by Professor Peetz are:

* Women's pay has dropped significantly under the new IR laws with real average earnings for women in the private sector falling by 2.0% and a majority of award workers suffering a real wage cut averaging almost 1% under the new minimum wage setting process.

* Almost 20,000 workers are losing award coverage every month and are being put onto AWAs or other non-union 'agreements' that remove formerly protected award conditions including overtime, penalty rates, rest breaks and other important job conditions.

* The rate at which overtime is being removed by AWA individual contracts has doubled under the new IR laws and 82% of AWAs have reduced or abolished overtime pay. The research shows that 63% of AWAs are abolishing penalty rates; 64% axeing annual leave loading; 69% abolishing or reducing rest breaks; 73% reducing or abolishing public holiday payments; and 52% abolishing shift work loading.

* While there are approximately 400,000 AWA individual contracts in use - less than half the one million the Federal Government claims - the effect of the new IR laws have been keenly felt with up to 41% of workers saying they know of someone affected by the new laws and 39% of clerical and administrative workers reporting they feel more scared about their job now than before the laws came in.

The research also shows that the Federal Government has exaggerated the employment effects of the new IR laws and that jobs growth was higher in 1994 when protection from unfair dismissal was actually introduced than in the post-WorkChoices period.

Professor Peetz finds that there is no evidence of significant economic benefits of new IR laws and, in fact, labour productivity has so far declined.

Hah, you rely on this fool. The guy is so one-sided and biased its not funny. When I reviewed his findings I nearly fell over laughing.

Basic economics highlights that the less regulation in the labour market, the greater the employment and general prosperity.

Personally, I'm not a fan of some aspects of the new IR laws, however the analysis of this so-called professor is so flawed I think he's been recieving some side payments from the union movement itself.

[Hawk Dork]

Frankc you should here what the profesor says about your credentials

[kolchak]

These new IR laws make no scrap of difference to me! I have heard no one actually say how these laws affect the unions to do their job?


Give me some answers...


Role of the unions to me are:

They have the money and the resources to help unfairly dismissed workers, i.e. can pay for good lawyers, also they can bargain for basic wages and allowances, although sometimes in this regard they are full of themselves, i.e. the union with Aust. Post.

[frankc]

These new IR laws make no scrap of difference to me! I have heard no one actually say how these laws affect the unions to do their job?


Give me some answers...


Role of the unions to me are:

They have the money and the resources to help unfairly dismissed workers, i.e. can pay for good lawyers, also they can bargain for basic wages and allowances, although sometimes in this regard they are full of themselves, i.e. the union with Aust. Post.

I have not been a member of a union for over 10 years. When I was, they served no purpose what so ever. Since moving to an AWA, I have been in a much better position to increase my remuneration and have done so.

Collective bargaining is effectively cross-subsidisation. The good performers, support the poor performers and get little increased compensation for it.

Any industry where the union is dominant results in a grossly inefficient use of resources and a severe lack of productivity. One must only look at the docks to see the negative impact unions have on productivity.

[kolchak]

I've worked in jobs were the union went on strike every second week, and I couldn't understand why? The employees in IMO were on a good wicket, but they are necassary, the best function they serve is providing resources to employees who otherwise would not have access to.

[Hawkamania!]

As far as joining a union, it depends on whether your union have people who care about their members :thumbsu: or have people who are just remoras looking for ALP jobs and don't give a damn about their members :thumbsd:.

Do your research before joining.

[Hawk Dork]

8 Hour Day

Annual leave
Was not achieved until 1941, when after a long campaign, the union movement gained one weeks leave.

Annual leave loading
A common benefit in most European countries, was achieved in the 1970s.

Sick leave
Started to appear in awards in the 1920s. Up until then, if you were sick, you went to work, or you went without pay and even faced dismissal.

Long service leave
Was won in Victoria in 1953.

Maternity leave
A 1979 ACTU campaign, followed by a test case in the Arbitration Commission saw unpaid maternity leave, and the job security that goes with it become reality. It is interesting to note that Australia was one of the last industrial nations, East or West, to have maternity leave. We are still one of the few nations without paid maternity leave.

Equal pay for women
Until 1949 women's wages were only 54% of the male rates. They were then upgraded to 75%. In 1972, after a long campaign, Equal Pay for Work of Equal Value was finally achieved. Employers opposed women receiving the same pay as men, and many still do. The sad reality is that pay for women is still lower than that for men.


Workers compensation
First came in WA in 1902. In 1985, after many years of campaigning, a new scheme was launched in Victoria which had 3 distinct arms:

(i) Injury prevention - many employers more responsible for the welfare of their employees.

(ii) Compensation.

(iii) Rehabilitation - helping injured workers to recover, and rejoin the workforce if they can.

As you can see, many significant improvements to working conditions have taken place this century. They have not come about by accident. They have been achieved only after long campaigns, and sometimes bitter struggles. On most occasions, employers and governments opposed the reforms. Without unions, workers would still be expected to work 6 days a week, 52 weeks of the year. If they were sick, they would have to go to work or lose pay. If injured at work, their only chance to recover lost wages would be to sue the employer at common law. Women would still be paid less than men for performing exactly the same work.

[frankc]

8 Hour Day

Annual leave
Was not achieved until 1941, when after a long campaign, the union movement gained one weeks leave.

Annual leave loading
A common benefit in most European countries, was achieved in the 1970s.

Sick leave
Started to appear in awards in the 1920s. Up until then, if you were sick, you went to work, or you went without pay and even faced dismissal.

Long service leave
Was won in Victoria in 1953.

Maternity leave
A 1979 ACTU campaign, followed by a test case in the Arbitration Commission saw unpaid maternity leave, and the job security that goes with it become reality. It is interesting to note that Australia was one of the last industrial nations, East or West, to have maternity leave. We are still one of the few nations without paid maternity leave.

Equal pay for women
Until 1949 women's wages were only 54% of the male rates. They were then upgraded to 75%. In 1972, after a long campaign, Equal Pay for Work of Equal Value was finally achieved. Employers opposed women receiving the same pay as men, and many still do. The sad reality is that pay for women is still lower than that for men.


Workers compensation
First came in WA in 1902. In 1985, after many years of campaigning, a new scheme was launched in Victoria which had 3 distinct arms:

(i) Injury prevention - many employers more responsible for the welfare of their employees.

(ii) Compensation.

(iii) Rehabilitation - helping injured workers to recover, and rejoin the workforce if they can.

As you can see, many significant improvements to working conditions have taken place this century. They have not come about by accident. They have been achieved only after long campaigns, and sometimes bitter struggles. On most occasions, employers and governments opposed the reforms. Without unions, workers would still be expected to work 6 days a week, 52 weeks of the year. If they were sick, they would have to go to work or lose pay. If injured at work, their only chance to recover lost wages would be to sue the employer at common law. Women would still be paid less than men for performing exactly the same work.

Not saying unions didn't have a role to play in the past. They have achieved some significant outcomes.

Today, however, they are irrelevent in alot of industries.

[Hawk Dork]

No matter who wins this election, I feel the union movement is ultimately dead. Particularly for those in skilled employment.

Dont tell the doctors who are in the AMA that or CPA accountants.
I have run various bussinesses over the last 20 odd years and have joined the Chamber of Commerce because I like the protection a good strong union offers.

[Hawk Dork]

Dont tell the doctors who are in the AMA that or CPA accountants.
I have run various bussinesses over the last 20 odd years and have joined the Chamber of Commerce because I like the protection a good strong union offers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eziuTLKKS7U&mode=related&search=