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 > Unions and Labor: is Dean Mighell right? > Comments

Unions and Labor: is Dean Mighell right? : Comments

By Tristan Ewins, published 24/2/2010

After the ACTU campaign to bring down Howard one would have thought unions would have more influence under Rudd Labor.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
Tristan,

i also have a concern about policy trends. for example, has the emphasis on productivity seen jobs lost in manufacturing replaced by similar well paid jobs in other sectors. An important question given the rise of Walmart in the US and decline of manufacturing.

I am sure that all people interested in politics want answers to such questions rather than just accepting the theory of free trade.

My major beef with you is terms the 'hard right' and 'social democracy'.

Was Howard as mean-spirited as you suggest as he emphasised the importance of ghe economic imperative yet sent welfare spending to record levels? Do role model nations (such as Sweden and Norway) also benefit from the neoliberal policies set by the US and others?

when you acknowledge the complexity of international relations, you may find that who is supposedly 'hard' or 'soft' in their policy stances is much more blurred than what the left would have us believe.

The unions are just one player in the scheme of things, and govt has to weigh up many considerations, albeit they csn always do it better.
Posted by Chris Lewis, Thursday, 25 February 2010 9:26:07 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:

Just re Howard and 'mean-spiritedness'.

On the top of my head I can remember Howard cutting back the Disability Support Pension by about $50/fortnight; and implementing tests that served as a disincentive for these people to work part-time.

I also recall the Howard govt implementing laws that cancelled the tax-free status of charities if they commented on govt policy.

Newstart rates stagnated - and one of the main reason Labor lets this continue - despite the fact it's not even enough for subsistance by modern standards - is fear of opportunist attacks from the Conservatives - based on prejudices they have helped to build up over decades...

Further: the Howard govt only introduced a 'no disadvantage' provision after the application of strong pressure...

And finally the tax mix became more and more regressive under the Conservatives despite Howard's claim to support the principle of progressive tax.
Posted by Tristan Ewins, Thursday, 25 February 2010 10:15:32 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes, with environmental, aged care and security spending rising under the Howard govt, it is becoming harder and harder to meet all needs.

As money does not grow on trees, and Australians are generally reluctant to pay higher taxes, expect more suffering in the future unless our attitudes change or we accept much higher govt debt or taxes.

Sorry to say this Tristan, but you idealists of the left would have us believe it is all so easy if only we did this and that.
Posted by Chris Lewis, Thursday, 25 February 2010 2:42:18 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
>>And finally the tax mix became more and more regressive under the Conservatives despite Howard's claim to support the principle of progressive tax.<<

Tristan,

This comment is said as though progressive taxation is true forever and a day. Progressive taxes are good protection for citizens in a closed or command economy. Once the economy turns more outward, progressive taxation becomes a ball and chain for ordinary workers as more ane more of them become innovative and independent.

The question is which form of taxation best suits the majority of the population. At the current time, as people are becoming more economically independent, progressive taxation is becoming anathema to them. If this trend continues, we'll have a flat tax system in about 20 years.
Posted by RobP, Thursday, 25 February 2010 3:16:19 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
Associating progressive taxes with a "closed or command economy" is ridiculous. Most countries have some form of progressive taxation - and I don't know that there are any left that could be identified as having a 'command economy'. Also: there is no intrinsic relationship between a 'closed or command economy' and socialism anyway. Personally, I argue for a democratic mixed economy.

Chris: re - the Left not being 'realistic' - There's a different between 'realism' - and cynical defeatism and capitulation.

I'd like to see an Australian society in many ways similar to what we see now in Sweden, Denmark, Holland etc. But by no means do I think we can get there overnight.

If we were to work over the term of Labor government to increase public expenditure by 1%-2% of GDP - with corresponding tax reform - then this would give us significant scope for reform in Education, Health, welfare, public housing and other crucial areas.

If tax reform is progressive - and results in more efficient and equitable provision of public services - then there are good grounds for reform here. And if tax reform - for instance in the form of a Disability Insurance Scheme - is linked directly to specific policy and social service areas - then most people would be more likely to support this - overtly recognising the social benefit.

The point is to demonstrate that most ordinary people will benefit from progressive tax reform, and efficient provision of social services.

If we expanded the social wage in Australia - along the lines of a 4% expansion of public expenditure (corresponding tax reform) over the course of ten years federal Labor govt - then I think that would be a massive step forward. And yes I do think it's do-able.

I also think it's within our grasp to retain robust protections for workers, while reforming the tax mix to give a 'fair go' for the disadvantaged.

And if ALP members aren't committed to these kind of reforms, they need to ask themselves what they're doing in the ALP anyway.

sincerely,

Tristan
Posted by Tristan Ewins, Thursday, 25 February 2010 7:09:27 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tristan,

again I don not disagree with much of what you say.

My main contention is that many on the supposed hard right also share a desire for a better society, at least in the Australian experience.

They just have different ideas about how a progressive society may be achieved. For instance, when you talk of the tougher attitudes towards social security recepients, you may acknowledge the dramatic reduction in long-term unemployed under Howard. Further, unemployment payments, at least for families, also must take acoount of higher payments for Family Tax Benefit A and B.

I, for one, think the Howard govt could have done more, especially in regard to housing, but I do not see any evidence to suggest that the previous govt was heartless. Maybe you think i am naive, but I believe Howard was indeed a most compassionate Australia, albeit from a centre-right perspective.
Posted by Chris Lewis, Friday, 26 February 2010 6:52:43 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

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