billie,

In your first post you stated that you expected that the ‘GST funds that the Howard government held back for pork barrelling’ would be redistributed to the states. I pointed out that no GST is held back. You then shifted your ground to other taxes which the federal government distributes to the states. The reference you gave has nothing to so with the distribution of federal taxes to the states and does not claim that ‘the GST moneys are sitting in Canberra’ – because they are not.

GST revenue to the states is, according to a Macquarie Bank report, about 5 per cent of GDP, the same percentage of pre-GST federal revenue passed to the states in a typical year, though less than the best pre-GST year. The amounts dispersed each year are publicly available.

The state budget has, I believe, a $1.3 billion surplus. A 10 per cent pay increase for teachers would cost about $320 million (c40,000 teachers times c$80,000 each, including on costs). The restoration of the missing 1,700 secondary teachers (the 1981 Liberal staffing ratio) would cost about $150 million at the higher pay rate. Both are easily affordable now, but teachers would have to do something they haven’t done for years and start standing up for themselves if they want the pay cuts and conditions decline of the last 25-30 years reversed.

As the timetabler for Hampton Park Secondary College (not Hampton High) until the end of 2004, I organised that school with a maximum teaching load of just under 18 hours a week and the capacity for decent time allowances. These were the best conditions in the state, the ideal towards which other teachers should have worked in their own schools.

Instead, Victorian teachers foolishly endorsed the 2004 Enterprise Bargaining Agreement, as a direct result of which the teachers at Hampton Park, who intelligently voted against the proposed EBA, were forced to accept higher teaching loads, longer periods, inadequate time allowances and the abolition of their management advisory committee.

Victorian teachers surrendered in 2004, and the government expects they will do so again.

keith,

The point I was making was that average people (in the working and middle classes) who voted Labor (whether they have always voted Labor or not) for certain reasons, and for 'change' will find that Labor will not represent their interests.

For example, people variously voted AGAINST the war in Iraq, attacks on democratic rights such as Hicks and Haneef, racsim like the anti-Muslim and anti-Sudanese vilification, inhumane detention of asylum seekers, the military intervention in NT, workchoices, imposition of the market into every aspect of our lives, blatant lies etc. However, on most of these issues Labor agrees completely with Howard. Even Labor's industrial relations policy retains most of the worst provisions of workchoices.

Not only will Labor be as bad as Howard, it is likely to be worse. Labor has mechanisms through which the working class can be suppressed, namely the trade unions. Labor began the deregulation of industrial relations under the Hawke-Keating accord with the unions. To illustrate what happened - under Whitlam annual wages increase was 4+%, under Fraser 1.5+%, under Hawke/Keating 0%, and under Howard 1.5+%. Workchoices is merely the logical progression of the Hawke-Keating reforms, which is why Labor will keep many of the provisions. As the US economy goes into freefall, attacks on the working class will be even more severe.

Labor will not get out of Iraq, and will likely participate in an attack on Iran - hence Rudd's reference in his election night speech to the US. Just as the American people voted overwhelmingly for the Democrats last year in the hope they will end the war, and they are now coming into conflict with the Democratic party, so will the Australian people come into conflict with Labor.

Hi Country Gal,

In my experience most employees in small business already vote labor. It's a reality as a common as the voting paterns of economists or investment bankers .:-)

The types of small business owners we meet and circulate with might not be the same. I know dozens of builders, brickies, plumbers, tilers, electricians (Well really only one or two as they are so bloody hard to track down), mechanics, truckers, diesel fitters, machinery mechanics and technicians, earth movers, roofers, metal fabricators, furniture manufactures, cabinet makers and even the odd forklift mechanic.
I know one or two personal trainers, engineering consultants, solicitors, realtors, retailers, auctioneers, importers, wholesalers, tax accountants, stockbrokers, landlords, consultant surgeons, and finally, of course, merchant bankers and unemployed millionaire businessman (who pretend they aren't) former diplomats. Yep I do know Kevin. I once lived in Griffith and he was hard to avoid. :-)

Now among the first group most employees are unabashedly labor and I shiack with them in a good natured way often. They are my mates.

Now among the latter there is a lot less easily identifiable labor employees and I shiack in a similar but more refined way with them. Most are quietly liberal leaning. I'd never be invited to one of their b-b-ques.

It's the former group of employers who changed their vote on saturday.

There is a great truth in your statement 'its often the case that in small businesses (and I am defining this as those with 5 or less employees), the owners tend to pass on good times to the workers'.

It's because they really do have great empathy with each other. It is especially so among the first group of employers I listed.

It was mostly that group's empathy that took real form and was displayed on saturday. I haven't discounted the employees in the latter group changed their vote either...but I don't really know that as acutely as I do, due to familarity, the circumstances and intent of the first group of employers and employees.

Regards Keith

Dnicholson, I agree that some smaller businesses got it badly wrong with AWA's which mostly goes to show how complex the process can be. Personally I know of none that have gone down that path - those that have had the choice have stuck with the NAPSA's for now (because they are used to the provisions), and many small businesses operate as sole traders and partnerships, and hence dont fall under the federal IR jurisdiction anyway - these are still operating under the state award system (apart from Victoria). Most of the small business that I have anything to do with arent affected by workchoices.

When it comes to union influences on small business, the worst experiences of the 80's and 90's had little to do with the way an individual business treated its employees. In fact in many situations the employees wanted the union reps (from out of town) to bugger off and leave them alone so that they could get on with the job. I'm not excusing all employers, as there are some that are obviously exploiters, but the vast majority are not. I guess I view things from a country town perspective too, wherein if you dont treat your employees decently pretty soon you wont be able to find anyone to work for you. And take into account the costs of high employee turnover.

I do not agree with the thrust of Kerry Corke's article - that the Labor Party is confirmed as the 'natural' party of government in Australia. There are several major flaws in the argument (not least being that the word 'natural' is incapable of definition in this context).

However, I thought that Corke's article, especially the table showing the state of the Liberal Party throughout government in Australia, would give people cause for concern about why the Liberal Party is in such a bad way. And to put their minds to how the status quo might be challenged and ultimately.

Instead, on OLO (and elsewhere) we read denial, anger, outrage, rationalisations and the inevitable abuse thrown not only at voters but at the writer-as-messenger ("All of the really strange statements seem to come from lawyers." A curious piece of abuse given the predominance of lawyers in the Liberal Party - but that's another matter.)

If I were a Labor Party person, I'd be delighted with the obvious inability of many Liberals to come to grips with the reality. The longer it takes the Liberals to take stock of their policy directions and to reform their administration, the longer the Australian Labor governments will remain in power.