Rudd's union headache

[stui magpie]

Good article in today's Age

http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/rudds-union-headache/2007/06/14/1181414459697.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

Guess time will tell whether the union's campaigning does in fact become a help or a hindrance to Labour.

[nomadjack]

Always amuses me how this issue of Labor being too under the control of trade unions is raised by conservatives and the media. Well Duh! Labor is, and has always been since its inception, the political wing of the trade union movement, with clear institutional links between the two through the direct affiliation of some but not all unions with the party. Of course the party will look to protect the rights of trade unions and all working people for that matter- that's it's main reason for being. What the party will always do though, is moderate it's more radical tendencies (if it has any remaining) in government, both in response to the realities of being in government and in response to different perspectives within the party. Don't forget that the party is quite diverse in its beliefs, as is the trade union movement. Not all unions are radical, and most are no longer anywhere near socialist. The Shoppies for example (SDA) who are alligned with the Labor Right are quite conservative. It is the Right that is absolutely dominanrt at the federal level.

As long as there is continuing community opposition to Workchoices Labor's relationship with the union movement will remain a secondary issue with little influence of voters.

BTW love how the union movement is being criticized for its strategic manual, the whole basis of which is a grass-roots community campaign against the workchoices legislation. What a horrible, insidious idea, trying to actually get out there and get involved amongst the community to advocate a position on a crucial policy issue. How revolutionary. How anti-democratic. Much better for government to just listen to the normal stuffed-shirt lobbyists, suits and shady characters like the Brethren that quietly skulk around the corridors in Canberra.

[HAL]

Well that's okay. Oh you knew already.

[Alec. J. Hidell]

[Proud Pies]

and the ALP of today is so far removed of the original ALP and the original vision of the ALP.

[stui magpie]

[HAL]

""? remains that Labour won government federally twice from Opposition WWII?

[David]

It should be noted, though, that the Liberals have only gained office from opposition three times since WW2...

Still, Labor's record hasn't been impressive. Since 1949, the Coalition have held power for 42 out of 58 years, almost 75%. Also, apart from the relatively short-lived Whitlam government, the only time Labor has been in office was during the Hawke/Keating years of economic rationalism. It seems unlikely that we will ever see another Labor PM from the left faction.

[stui magpie]

Nice pick up David with the 3 times, I knew as soon as I posted it someone would get that.

But like you said, Labour has been in opposition for basically 75% of the time, you've got to be in opposition to win from opposition.

There won't be any party getting elected that presents itself from either extreme, the populace has become much more centre and aren't comfortable with extremists. Both main parties try to capture the centre with leanings toward their own philosophy.

Thanks god we have a senate.

[HAL]

Are you a man or a woman?

[member34258]

[stui magpie]

As long as people waste their vote on minority BS parties like the Greens who have no chance of forming government, then preferences will have too large a determining factor.

[Alec. J. Hidell]

I think its spelt LABOR

[HAL]

Why? You're kidding. spelt LABOR is?

[nomadjack]

Bit confused about your comments in favour of the role of the Senate and then against the minor parties Stui. IMO the Senate works best when neither major party has an outright majority. When controlled by the govt it is little more than a rubber stamp. Likewise, when controlled by the Opposition it tends to become purely obstructionist for the sake of political pointscoring. It's role as a check on government and as a house of review works well with two or three minor parties or independents from different political persuasions holding the balance of power.

Don't whinge member34258, the same thing happened in reverse in 1990 with Labor getting over the line 49/51. Our electoral system is based on seats won, not votes won.

You're right in terms of years in power David, but in terms of influence, Labor has arguably done more to shape Australian postwar society than the conservatives.

Curtin/Chifley postwar building and mass immigration, shift in focus from Britain to US Alliance;

Whitlam economic reforms, (tariff reductions) social reforms in areas of education, health, urban development, multiculturalism etc, more independent foreign policy;

Hawke and Keating, floating of dollar; bank de-regulation; competition policy; tariff reform; accord/enterprise bargaining, privatisation/redefined role of government.

Hasn't all been roses by any means, but it is Labor that has generally made the 'big picture' decisions that have shaped modern Australia.

What did we get from Howard? A phucking tax system!