The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Is Rudd a dud? > Comments

Is Rudd a dud? : Comments

By Chris Lewis, published 16/9/2008

If Rudd is concerned with leaving a legacy to match his ego, he should shift the balance of assistance to those most in need.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. All
C@tmomma wrote: "I see no analysis of the policies and programmes initiated already by the Rudd government, such as the Low Cost Housing Tax Offset, which has been oversubscribed by the building industry and super funds, and will see thousands of new houses constructed for rent at 20% below market rates. Not a mention of the Prime Minister's Bonhoeffer-esque initiative to help the homeless and find housing solutions for them. Not a word of support from an ex-building site worker for the abolition of AWAs."

Let's talk about housing and wages for a minute.

Are you aware that the Rudd Government is running the biggest immigration program in Australia's history?

Do you understand that the immigration-fuelled population explosion of the past few years has been the prime cause of Australia's acute housing shortage?

Would you care to explain how increasing immigration to even higher levels will alleviate, rather than exercabate, Australia's housing shortage?

As for wages, the Rudd Government is simply using high immigration to achieve the same ends the Howard government was trying to achieve through Work Choices - lower wages.

If Rudd was really concerned about housing affordability and wages, he would be reducing immigration, not drastically increasing it.
Posted by Efranke, Thursday, 18 September 2008 12:50:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Chris,

I am alway disquieted by Articles that use absolutes and/or biased assumptions as the basis/proof of their argument thus limiting the possibilities.

I respect everyone’s right to their view. Therefore I was/am not interested in convincing anyone of my view. Nor do I claim any solutions only examination and observation.

Therefore comments are/were intended in that context.

You said >> “As long as there is inequality, injustice, differences in wealth and influence between nations, and environmental degradation, there will always be a general debate between the Left and right over the extent of intervention or approach to different policy issues.”<< I read this as bias and assumption.
To wit :-
• ‘Subliminal?’ Capitalization of L not R.
• R/L are cold war terms appropriated by modern politics. As a means of differentiation, polarizing perceptions for political moral supremacy.
• It implies that there are only two mutually exclusive views to the topic….logically untrue.
• Logically not all possible options/responses are exclusively the province of either label.
• The Article is based on the assumption that PEOPLE are L/R or can be neatly located on some LtoR linear continuum when in reality most people today are clearly a discontinuous mixture of both. People today are no longer on the old L/R divide hence as evidenced by a combination of factors union membership down et sec, average participation in capitalist markets and most telling the constantly hung Senate the public don’t trust, believe in either side. In truth they simply want better government, ideas.
• From this perspective parties divided on some ideological L/R divide are at best a compromise.
• This particularly true in the context of Democracy which is/was perverted by power bases be they L/R. This renders the compromises ‘bad’ as it essentially the decision making from the people. Communism, Capitalism have been likewise perverted serving the same ends (Power of a minority).
• Therefore >>”inequality, injustice, differences etc << aren’t exclusive to either side, thus reality renders the terms L/R and your passage flawed.
!500 words was metaphorical rather than definitive.
Posted by examinator, Thursday, 18 September 2008 8:08:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is great to get criticism that makes you think hard about one's commentary approach.

As for C@tmomma,

Some universities may as well give out jellybeans as PhD's because i get much more common sense about politics on building sites, and from individuals wihtout PhDs who I even have differences with (Kelly, Albrechtsen, Adams), than many of the academics I have had contact with.

But for examinator and BN, I enjoy their criticisms, especially there final thoughts after our sparring.

I too have problems with the left-right divide as all individuals have an eclectic range of views. For instance, I have always voted Labor in the house of Reps, a minor party in the upper senate, but have conservative views when it comes to culture, defence, and the importance of the West (liberalism).

My prime motivation for being a Labor voter, besides my upbringing and work as a labourer most of my life, is my support for universal health and education, and a decent IR system.

I would like to think that the Coalition will challenge Labor in these areas one day as a good idea is a good idea, although there will always be important differences between the centre-left and centre-right with both necessary for a vibrant democracy capable of being both competitive and compassionate in this competitive world.
Posted by Chris Lewis, Thursday, 18 September 2008 5:36:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Chris

Why do people express disappointment with Labor Governments? Their role is to manage capitalism, balancing between labour and capital but in the end on the side of capital.

There will be changes over time but the essentials appear the same. Vere Gordon Childe springs to mind.

The Wall St crisis will see a whole range of class arguments arise soon. The Financial Review had one heading "Will capitalism survive?"

In defence of Chris against those who say give Rudd time, many of Rudd's achievements are mere words - Kyoto, Sorry - or a continuation of the essence of Howard's polices - such as workchoices - while making some cosmetic changes. ETS is a bosses' solution.

Rudd is a continuation of Howard in his essentials, not his abnegation. This was predictable given the nature of Labor to run capitalism.

If for example the Wall St crisis spills over into the productive economy in the US and then onto the rest of the world, ( a real possibility in my view, and one I hope to have published in OLO soon), Rudd's politics will force him to attack wages, jobs and public services.

As to the decline of unions, that is in large part a consequence of the class collaborationist policies of the officials, exemplified by for example the Accord. Tom Bramble's new book on the way forward for the trade union movement (Trade Unionism in Australia: A History from flood to ebb tide (Cambridge University Press) argues essentially that a return to militancy is the answer. As job and wages cuts loom courtesy of Wall St, that is a lesson we could all learn, whether it is fighting Howard, or Rudd or the bosses.

Tom is doing an eastern states tour with Socialist Alternative.

Sydney: 7pm Tuesday 30 September, Newtown Neighbourhood Centre (opposite Newtown station, King St)

Canberra: 6pm Wednesday 1 October, Room G053, Hayden Allen Building, Australian National University

Melbourne: 6.30pm Thursday 2 October, Trades Hall, cnr Lygon and Victoria Sts, Carlton.

Brisbane: 6.30pm Thursday 9 October, Trades and Labor Council Building, 16 Peel St, South Brisbane.
Posted by Passy, Sunday, 21 September 2008 11:39:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well I support Rudd, I reckon he is one of the best Prime Minister's we have EVER had. So I dont know what Chris Lewis is on about!?!?
Posted by Billya, Monday, 22 September 2008 11:10:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A lot of talk, a lot of rhetoric, coming from all angles. Can we boil it down to identify sources of disgruntlement. Here's a start :

A) A claimed budget surplus of $22 billion, and a heap of rhetoric about the need to keep it all locked up in Canberra to avoid inflation - resulting in a perceived failure to share good times with the people in general. This defect is more sharply in focus, given the extraordinarily unconvincing defense of with-holding some kind of catch-up for single aged pensioners, singularly excluded from inclusion in any kind of budget gain.

B) a lot of pre-election talk about the disastrous condition of teeth belonging to many Australians, most notably those in the older age bracket. I am mindful of my encounter with One Tooth Uncle in village India - his one front tooth grown to an extraordinary length because it lacked any tooth in the lower front jaw to bite against. I am expecting to see One Tooth Aunties and well as Uncles in rural and urban Australia before Rudd gets around to implementing his promised assistance in this area. Mind you, it would be salutary, perhaps, to offset any quick fix immediate help for folk losing their teeth with a longer term strategic market-based remedy that would result from opening up dental schools and breaking the medieval guild monopoly on pricing dental services created by an artificial shortage of dentists

CONTINUED IN NEXT POST
Posted by veritas, Monday, 22 September 2008 2:07:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy