I'm starting to wonder whether we actually have an operational government at the moment.

(That isn't a complaint, by the way, just an observation.)

But it does seem that the present make-up of our parliament is the perfect recipe for governmental paralysis.

Following the election, Prime Minister Gillard was able to persuade the Governor General that she had been guaranteed sufficient support from members outside her party to allow her form government. But that has yet to transform itself into any identifiable set of policies, or even an overall strategic direction.

It is becoming very apparent that there is a marked difference between a Party-based Coalition, and simply rounding up of a couple of independents to make up the numbers.

So, what does our present government stand for? Can anybody tell?

Or do we simply continue to dance around each new issue as it arises.

Dear Pericles,

Your topic confirms my decision prior to the last campaign, for the most part, to stop listening.
The impression I'm getting from the outskirts is one of government inertia....obviously, I haven't missed anything.

I can't see anything wrong with dancing around each new issue as it arises. The effect of the rusted-on party coalitions that we are used to, is that the party in government - in effect its most senior members - just pass into law whatever they want. The Parliament just becomes a rubber stamp. I actually prefer the current inertia - this way the sociopaths can do less harm.

"To do nothing is also a good remedy."
Hippocrates

It is called 'don't rock the boat' politics.

I doubt we would ever see any major reforms or a reining in of growthist and privatisation policy with our two-party dominant system. At least with the influence of independents there might be a sporting chance for some parliamentary reform and a desire for bipartisan approach on some issues.

There is merit in Greg Combet's latest speech that the ALP needs to represent something and decide what it is it believes in rather than be dicated to by Opposition rhetoric and poll responses. I also think Doug Cameron in the ALP was right in his assessment that many ALP polticians have become political zombies too afraid to go against the status quo within the party and more interested in career prospects than national ones. Ditto the Coalition.

While there is an argument that deference to polls is an example of democracy working, that would only count if we all got a vote. Polls are not the same as taking a vote where every individual gets a say. Polls also dumb down the debate into simplistic questions of Yes or No without any opportunities to put options and arguments.

The Coalition is the same and continues down the same old path without ever questioning its extreme right wing agenda.

There is little to distinguish between the two and that is not a good place for political democracies.

*I actually prefer the current inertia - this way the sociopaths can do less harm.*

I agree with Jefferson on this one.

The idea that parties have to rush off on some tangent, because it
seemed like a good idea the time, is fully of dangers.

*There is little to distinguish between the two and that is not a good place for political democracies*

Pelican, that is for good reasons, ie because most Australians are
clearly quite content with the middle ground.

The thing is, if people want to change and improve their lives,
they are the ones who can best achieve that themselves. The
notion that Govt has to hold everyones hand for everything, is
clearly flawed

"""
So, what does our present government stand for? Can anybody tell?
"""

Sure, they're doing exactly what they want, just most don't want to admit it or see it, they use ridicule and ad hominem abuse to shut people up that would speak out or who have slipped through their web.

Everything they are doing has a reason and it's working perfectly. The supposed intellectuals, (I call them wordsmiths because there's not one bit of intellect between them in relation to this matter) have been well and truly brainwashed into performing their roles exactly as planned.

Should I dare to mention a new world order, agenda 21 and globalization, then watch the machine(more like a man made immune system to protect the machine) jump into gear and remove, discredit, mock, those that try to inform.

It's all here for any that want to know and can think beyond their self interest or past their blinkered view on life. Open your eyes listen to your heart, for you know it to be true, trust in yourself.

Agenda 21 For Dummies
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzEEgtOFFlM

there is plenty of stuff goes through ..
because it suits those..who support..the two party adgenda
ie the stuff the elites..supporting the 2 parties.[susstem]. want

the joke of a debate on iraq..[or was it afganastan]
i had to switch off listening..it was all so boys-own/club

at least the senete debate raised some issues

but the rule is..the govt that governs least
governs best...[for now tony is just keping his head down
and opposing for the sake of oppossing]

ditto usa...soon
uk at least seems to be doing better stuff

sarcastic sar-cosy...is just lashing out with the last bit of right-wiong bile he can muster...as for the media giant in italy..well the media dont report any of that

and israel..isnt in the news
[julia loves israel]...something in the wind there

the joke is the coelition...[lol]..as if the greens..lab-rats..dont have their own coelition..[all parties should be having their own numbers]...what the heck is value in coelition [two party prefered]numbers..thats not news thats spin

but who cares..
they only dig their own graves

I just have to ask, what does the opposition stand for?
May I answer my question.
Read ANY of Shadow Ministers threads, the answer is not much.
However if this Parliament does not end badly for my party I will be pleased.
The group we owe our government to are a motley crew and unless we can craft a DD election we are bound for the rocks, our only single hope is that Tony Abbott continues to lead his dysfunctional mob.

Thankyou dear Pericles for another opportunity to sound the vital alarm over the Fabian socialist Julia Gillard and her ilk with their 'inevitability of gradualism'....

Don't be confused or dismayed by the action of the puppets.. look to the puppet master!

Or at least his ideas.

The too-ing and fro-ing of daily politics is but a side show.

PS...I've signed up to Arjay's club :) Kidding.

PSS.. Watch Beck (Fox news 8.00am and 5.00pm Eastern standard) next TEUSDAY.... it'll be quite something as 'spooky dude' is held up naked for the world to see.

Boazy, [please go back to one of your other names this one is loud and showy but like your over use of caps a turn off].
Well at least we know how you stand, I have rarely seen so much dribble here in OLO.
Fox! no bloke my ribs will crack.
Colbert report much more informative.
Gillard, believe me, is not even socialist, she did,again believe me, stand against pension increases.
You have some how latched on to a 1950,s myth and breathed your own brand of Christian right conservative rubbish in to it.
Oh PS how about stopping the shouting, the over use of caps ,yes we need to show our feelings but better ways exist.
Gillard is a hard headed woman changes her politics as often as her dress but is driven by self interest not your hugely funny and silly idea.

In spite of what Belly says, I actually have not commented on fundamentally what either of the parties stand for, rather focusing on the tactical day to day sparring.

The philosophies of the two parties have one fundamental difference.

The liberals believe that the market is the best supplier of goods, services and infrastructure, and that the government's task is to put in place legislation to enable economic activity and protect against excesses. Economic involvement is only where the "public good" is not reflected in the financial return.

Labor on the other hand believes far more in the direct involvement of government in controlling economic activity, such as building and running public utilities, strict labour laws etc.

However, what one sees in the day to day sport of politics is very different. For example, the coalition is closer philosophically to Labor than the greens, however, both Wilkie and Bandt had significantly less votes than Labor, and only succeeded based on liberal preferences. (I believe that this will be reflected in the Victorian election as well)

The two obvious advantages to the libs are:

1 Labor loses the ability to govern in its own right, and in order to govern has to appease the far left.
2 Labor's move to the left vacates the center of politics for the libs.

Labor having made a multitude of promises to appeal to the center (many of which ran contrary to its core values to win the election), is now in the invidious position that in order to make good on any of its promises it will have to cede votes to either the greens or the libs, and if it doesn't meet them will only cement its reputation as the party of non delivery.

Labor having not got sufficient seats to govern, would have been far better served in the long term to allow the coalition to struggle, but now having firmly grasped the poisoned chalice, it is the coalitions task to beat them like a piñata as they spin helplessly.

Our Govts are now controlled by the power of Corporate money.This is why they are both impotent and incompetent.Julia Gillard's first announcement as PM was made from the Lowy Institute and immediately her companion Tim Mathieson gets a job with Dadon a a Jewish lobby group.So who controls Australia?

The carbon taxes are all about corporate profits and nothing to do with the environment.We pay more for our coal produced energy here than the customers who buy it from us.

The private banks now determine interest rates while Wayne Swan's protests are ignored.The Coalition are making noises but won't do what is necessary ie a new Govt bank to produce the new money to equal inflation increases in GDP.

Yabby
"... that is for good reasons, ie because most Australians are
clearly quite content with the middle ground."

That is true which is why we see a convergence to the middle particularly with the smoothing of old class politics and improvements in the pay of tradesmen etc.

However the 'middle ground' is shifting further to the Right away from any balancing of what governments can/should do and what the market supplies as in Shadow Minister's assessment above. Shadow Minister is incorrect to assume that the ALP agenda has not shifted to the Right which is reflected in privatisation policy and the neo-liberal agenda.

As a middle grounder with a slight Left leaning there is a danger of moving further to the anarchy with this heightened dependence and faith in pure market politics.

There are many ways government can be reduced (ie. waste) without losing sight of the positives of public ownership for essential infrastructure nor the universal benefits of public health, education and law enforcement and welfare. It is clear from the behaviours of the finance sector that the market cannot absolutely assure competition policy, nor can governments if the regulatory mechanisms are inadequate.

Spot on Pelican. Couldn't agree more.
I share your political leanings.

The ideological faith in markets forces alone is a concerning thing.

Clearly a falsehood. A sham of the first order when we consider the collusive behaviour
of those at the top of the food chain. Clearly incapable of acting for the greater good,
the big end of town should expect regulatory change/strengthening as genuine competition is obviously required at the very least.

Health ,education, welfare and law enforcement even essential services etc should all be free of commercial priorities.Business seems to be good at making decisions favouring exploitation without due consideration for the future. I'm not sure we really need their expertise when it comes to the big decisions e.g environment etc as well.

Pelican, labor shifted to the right with Hawke and Keating, who
realised that the old staunch left policies were a failure and
that market economics would bring results. History has proven
them correct.

No longer does a tradesman have to join a union and wave the
flag. He can most likely be better off by borrowing a bit,
starting his own business etc. So we have a whole lot of people
operating as small contractors, making that economy happen
and less likely to vote labor.

Deregulation of the banking industry, allowed that to happen.
Market economics allowed it to happen, people are better off
because of it.

I am always bemused by your blind faith in the supposed
good of govt. For the reality is that those working for
Govt are not struck by altruistic lightning. They commonly
land up feathering their own nests and if it's a Govt monopoly,
they can commonly do so with impunity. That is exactly what
we had when Telstra, Qantas etc, were Govt owned.

The result is enormous amounts of wha wha jobs as you call them.
The result is also much waste. How many Govt depts return
saved funds to the treasury, how many spend every last cent
before the end of the financial year?

But put your blind faith in the good of govt, I certainly don't
as the reality shows otherwise. It becomes a feeding ground
for fat cats, as you should know

Yabby I am always open to valid criticism of government and certainly and my views are quite eclectic acknowledging the goods/bads, and risks inherent in a strong focus on one extreme or the other.

I have yet to see similar criticism from yourself re your faith in market forces and the risks in lack of regulation in some sectors.

The wah wah jobs are an issue but not if essential infrastructure services are manned appropriately.

*I have yet to see similar criticism from yourself re your faith in market forces and the risks in lack of regulation in some sectors. *

Pelican, you clearly don't read too many of my posts! For I have
been shouting from the rooftops for a long time now, that it was
lack of regulation enforcement by that hopeless Bush/Cheney regime,
which carries much of the blame for the GFC. I've also praised
Costello for avoiding the same thing here, by ensuring that we
have a tough banking regulator.

What I am very tiered of, is people like yourself simply blaming
everything on profits, seemingly ignoring everything else.
if you spent the amount of time that I do, having a look at company
financials, it would soon dawn on you that many of them operate on
the slimmest of margins. Building materials companies, many others,
if they are left with 5% of turnover, they are doing well. That
is easily returned through increased efficiencies and cuts in waste,
in comparison to no competition govt enterprises.

Now lets look at power charges and peoples screams about greedy
power companies. Yet the Govt of NSW mandates that people who
install PV panels are paid 60c a unit for years and years. Billions
of $ are added to the power bill, consumers have to pay. It is
a shocking political decision, yet nobody says boo. It must be
those greedy companies, not dumbarse polticians, giving away other
peoples money.

My problem too is with intelligent regulation enforcement. As many
small business owners will tell you, when some nazi like govt
inspector, with few brains but lots of delusions of power, goes
over the top once again, people become mightely pissed off, for
alot of these people don't have an ounce of common sense, or
any understanding of the real world in which we operate.

Now I grant you, common sense and intelligence cannot be legislated
for. But it remains a huge problem.

Yabby
I am also a little sick of people who cannot see the risks in a profit incentive via corporatisation of essential services. Profit, while the impetus for business, is a curse when the drive for obscence profit overrides any other community values. This is particularly pertinent when there is lack of compeitition, price fixing and other monopolistic behaviours either obvious or more insidious; and the lack of appropriate government regulation or oversight. Sometimes the nazis you refer are not government ones.

It is not about 'blaming profits'. This is a simplistic analysis of a desire to foster better and fairer societies.

There are some sectors that are best managed without a 'profit motive' and where services are essential for greater community or collective benefit.

The nazi type bureacrats to which you refer do exist. We have all met them, they are not the majority and there are adequate mechanisms to bring those 'overseers' to account. Even good old ACA and TT bring those bureaucrats to account often overturning the ridiculous decisions that are made. I have seen some pretty bureaucratic and stand over tactics from the private sector in my time too, with little accountability by comparison.

Yabby, working on a slim margin or a larger margin is relevant only to turnover figures and a 22 billion dollar profit is still a 22 billion dollar profit.

I am all for encouraging business and for less red tape particularly for small business, but there is too much corporatisation since Hawke/Keating/Howard etal of what should be public assets IMO.

The role of a public service is to provide services and while one might argue what should/shouldn't be the purvey of government, the bottom line is where there is a real risk of hardship and lack of access to critical services, a more collective approach is best.

Not everything should be driven by a profit motive. You paint this as a negative opinion. Think about what the possible consequences are of wage disparity and access to opportunity and services if we were purely at the mercy of market forces.

*This is particularly pertinent when there is lack of compeitition, price fixing and other monopolistic behaviours either obvious or more insidious; and the lack of appropriate government regulation or oversight.*

Pelican, that is exactly why we have laws against these things.
If we don't, it is the fault of poor govt, not business.

*Yabby, working on a slim margin or a larger margin is relevant only to turnover figures and a 22 billion dollar profit is still a 22 billion dollar profit*

So it is and people are running around like headless choocks, abusing
their bank tellers, because politicians and the media are stirring
them up, for their own personal gain. But lets look at the
underlying facts.

Banking is a huge business in Australia, as Aussies love to borrow.
So the total assets employed/risked are 2.2 trillion$. 22 billion
is 1% of that, hardly spectacular.

We also know from the figures published, that bank margins in retail
banking have in fact dropped, cost of funds is increasing,
less write offs are a big share of the increased figures,
that there was a flight to quality (to the big 4) during the
GFC as people panicked and overseas banks, as well as various
home loan lenders, pulled the plug. Banks like NAB have cut alot
of bank fees, saving consumers around 900 million.

Basel 3 is now forcing banks to have more longer term funding,
that will cost them extra. For depositors won't commit to those
longer terms, without compensation for risk.

The list goes on and I won't bore you as I know you are not
interested. All you see is 22 billion and your mind is already
made up.

Well Yabby the opposite equally applies. All you see is 'blaming profits' and are unwilling to look at the big picture. It is not just about banking but a skewed economic system.

The list goes on but I won't bore you as your mind is already made up within the Economics 101 Manual of indoctrination.

See it is too easy to make personal comments and judgements about people we don't really know, but it is arguments that count.

PS: That probably came across as a bit harsh. I am sure if we had met in a pub over a drink we would have more in common than not. :)

*All you see is 'blaming profits' and are unwilling to look at the big picture. It is not just about banking but a skewed economic system.*

Pelican, you are the one, claiming that our economic system is
skewed, not me. I think its quite balanced actually. We are
unlike America, unlike Venezuela or Cuba, but somewhere in the
midde.

We have swung to market economics, because we had to and it gave
us results. OTOH we also have Govt regulation and a huge social
welfare system, bankrolled by that thriving economic system.

Privatising Telstra, CSL, CBA, Qantas, has benefitted all of us,
through more competition and lower prices. You have yet to show
and argument that this is not so.

OTOH we have Govt schools and private schools, Govt hospitals and
private hospitals, Australia Post and private couriers. There is
nothing wrong with that, for Govt services improve when they too
can be benchmarked and need to be competitive.

It all comes back to the same thing, human nature. People in general
will become complacent, fat and lazy, feathering their own nests,
given half a chance. Some form of competition keeps them at least
a little bit awake and gives them a reason to look over their shoulders and perform at least a little.

The more the competition, the wider awake they are, for their
self interest is threatened. That is just human nature for you.

But Yabby you are the one advocating the feathering of nests by the fat and wealthy overriding any other responsibility.

I am not advocating getting something for nothing only that the mechanisms should ideally ensure the system is not distorted so much as to only advantage (by opportunity or flawed ideas about value of labour vs property) one group heavily over the other.

How has the privatisation of Qantas beneffited us when their good safety record has already been affected by offshore maintenance and lack of governance. Has Telstra's service improved - a resounding No. Are banks more competitive since the CBA was privatised?

C'mon Yabby think about it.

*But Yabby you are the one advocating the feathering of nests by the fat and wealthy overriding any other responsibility.*

I certainly am not. I am simply realistic about the basics of
human nature as I see it everywhere. The only way to solve that
is to create some kind of competitive environment, or people get
screwed. By Govt or by business.

*How has the privatisation of Qantas beneffited us when their good safety record has already been affected by offshore maintenance and lack of governance*

So which plane crashed due to lack of maintenance? It used to
cost around 1400$ return from Perth to Sydney. It now costs 400$.

*Has Telstra's service improved - a resounding No*

It used to cost me 2$ a minute to ring Europe, now its a tiny fraction
of that. It used to cost me 9$ an hour for the internet, now
its 49$ a month. Fact is telecommunications costs have dropped
dramatically, due to competition.

*Are banks more competitive since the CBA was privatised?*

CBA used to work on a 4% spread, today they work on a 2.2% spread.
Banks laughed at me when I used to tell them that they should pay
interest on at call money. They said it would never happen. Today
they pay between 4.5-6%, due to competition. The list goes on.

Don't worry, I have thought about it lots and yes I'm sure we would
get on fine at the pub :)

.

Err... I can see absolutely no change for the better at all.

Gillard is as big a dunce as ever. No benefit has come from her election, other than some people bleat about having a female PM and that being 'a good thing'.

But they'd say that if Julie Bishop was the PM too, so there is no real benefit to the gender change as far as I can see.

Someone mentioned Doug Cameron. Yes, well, he's not exactly at the forefront of demanding anything either is he?

Must have missed Combet's speech to the ALP but I really cannot imagine it was a very challenging effort, because if it was, there is no one in the ALP who would be capable of understanding the 'big words' in it.

TBC
Most people might acknowledge in a casual way 'how nice it is to have a woman PM' just as they might acknowledge that the tulips look good this year as a relacement for daffodils, but it the tulips die off quicker then they might go back to the daffodils, or try a different variety of tulip.

No one really thinks that a woman PM will be any better or worse. They will be judged just as a male PM on their achievements and their ideals.

I mentioned Doug Cameron and Combet in the context of how far the ALP has shifted to the Right and the fact that these two are questioning some of the grass roots stuff.

Pelican... oh yes, I recall the joy that ushered Thatcher in to Number 10, a fresh approach etc etc blah blah blah...Sink the Belgrano, and Goose Green, never mind entire industries closed down, and a mammoth and profligate spending of national wealth on nothing very much.

I do understand what you say, but no, I doubt people would have said that so willingly if it had been The 'Parrafin' Bishop instead of our new Baptist PM, someone who had been publicly groomed to be 'a future PM'.

I do believe, that an awful lot of people believe, that a female PM will bring a new 'positive' dynamic to the affairs of the nation, simply because of their gender. And one could believe that Thatcherism proves it. But then again, Cameron (the UK PM one) is going to be even worse than her from what my shell-shocked friends and relatives in Blighty are saying now.

Cameron (the Senate one here) knew very well when he accepted his retirement package and slipped onto the red leather Jason easy-recliners with his supersoft sheepskin slippers, that his only role was to remain mute, tug his forelock and do the bidding of others, as it was within his union too, if 'progression' was sought.

That he has awoken, Rip Van Winkle-like after his winter snooze, says more of Cameron than it does of the ALP.

He burned out, or more correctly, fizzled out, after his two seconds of never-to-be-repeated notoriety, did he not?

Besides, one Rip Van Winkle does not, a summer, make

You have a way with words TBC.

If Bishop was PM then she, like Gillard, would be judged on her performance. I don't see Gillard getting a free ride on gender in Australian politics thus far despite the remarks. It is only natural that gender would be mentioned at some stage with a first PM. The same happened with Thatcher. The same would be true with a first Indigenous PM or a PM who was disabled in some way.

As for Cameron, his comments were fairly recent so we are yet to know what comes next but if Combet and Cameron are stirring the embers then chances are they are not the only two.

Indeed, Howes is too.

But he is from Australia's Worst Union, (Belly's tribe) and politically opposite to Combet and Cameron, so that might be interesting.

Even the ALPs apology of a national secretary seems to understand they are bereft of ideas, talent, brains and credibility, although he then blew his own by blaming Latham for the near wipeout.

Fancy that, the monster the ALP, and Gillard in particular, helped to create, Latham, being blamed for their ineptitude!

It beggars belief, while indicating absolutely nothing has been learned as well.

Actually, I wouldn't be too surprised if Gillard was coping some undercurrent of flack within the criticism of her, because she is a woman.

But I agree, she is not getting a free ride of any sort because of her gender.

But these days I don't bother to read newspapers, so have not really read any 'critiques' of her, although I see Paul Kelly, the Vatican's man, along with Sheridan and Pearson and gawd knows how many others, at the Oz, has been sniping at her.

As for a PM being disabled.... we've had a few of them, but most see that as being something else.

TBC thanks, you open the door to why that idiot union,you know the one, resorts to calling the AWU Australia's worst union.
Yes grumbles in my ranks, Belly should not speak out solidarity forever all that rubbish!
No way.
Born a longtime before that union, sunk its opposition blasted its way on to the stage the AWU was always my union.
Not Any of the other unions that make it todays one.
It has regained land it once plowed nearly on its own civil construction.
That thugs mugs and grubs group seemingly much loved by TBC is a dead weight on Unions.
Its members delegates and very sole, are migrating, to the union I served.
Bashing, thugs wearing masks gangsters unionism, the saying half witted things about its betters.
WHY? do I say some from my paddock will not be pleased?
Solidarity is a dream to cling to the idea if we the center of unionism do not separate our selves from the idiots we are being solid.
NO WAY not with our members past or future.
I Have a ten point mantra, I wrote it years ago.
It is called so you want to be a union official.
It is in my next post here, if pride in being the best brings TBC in to a sweat so be it.

So you want to be a union official?
The Rules
1
give all the glory to the union not your self.
2
Only the best should serve the members, if you are not one do not take the job.
3
Its a 24/7 job be prepared to answer the phone every time.
4
Use no lie no threat and understand its your job to communicate with both sides.
5
Grubs exist in the movement,never hide them get them out in the open, unionists pay for them.
6
stop see every member as often as you can,communicate use e mail any thing to service every one.
7
Ever member, each single one, is the power of the union why we exist do only your best for them.
8
Even if your member is wrong if nothing you can do will save them, be honest with them and sorry for them or leave the job.
9
put your hands on the back of the chair you are about to sit in, remind your self it is others who put you there and you owe them your best.
10
If you give your best it will not be superannuation that rewards you.
If you are the right person you will be filled with joy knowing your members trusted and liked you.
You can never have too much Passion to be a union official.
Some sadly, have too little, they and those who put up with them have betrayed our reason to exist.
Belly

Belly, if you refer to that crew known as Can't F k Much Else Up, then it has nothing to do with me.

And I agree with you that the run-through merchants should have been expelled from the ALP and their union too.

Combet is not from them though, is he?

And Dougie is not either.

The AWU carries its tag of being Australia's Worst Union from well beyond your nemesis union's lips, I have to say.

Not always said in spite, mostly jest, I should add.

There are far worse unions than yours, for sure, the SDA for instance, but then, in their defence, they have to deal with the reality of their membership, and potential membership, and their own inability to unionise beyond the major shopping centre stores.

I have a son working in 'retail' who I advise to join them though, bad though they are, because his boss is even worse.

I abandoned my job as an organiser when I could no longer tolerate the reality that our membership, primarily but not entirely, politically-conservative women, were not really the primary objective of our leadership, their own political elevation was.

In fact, our employer was so bad, I joined a union to ensure some protection for myself, and had to pay two union fees.

I don't think anyone here on OLO would doubt your dedication to 'the cause', from your posts at least.

But my comment was really about Howes, and his openly challenging the idiocy of the ALP. He is correct, and so is Cameron.

The interesting part will be how the notionally right and notionally left harmonise their critiques of their brain-dead colleagues, and breath life back into Lazarus.

Greg is a great man Howe's too but please let him stay till he achieves his/my dream.
Bill Shorten and Howe's saved the AWU.
Without them the amalgamated union may not exist.
I can not defend every union official.
And would never hide my contempt for one, my ex boss.
You and I know, unionism has not fully recovered from compulsory unionism.
Had unions been servicing it would not have hurt.
I think no one ever should be pushed to join, but have cracked some hard nuts by just being fair dinkum.
I want to go on record here, Gillard is not the one to lead Labor, in my view she crossed the river.
From left to right,she would become Republican or anything in her own interests.
Wise men in my paddock rather than get in to me should note my views are shared and growing.
I am proud that my in box is full every day from mates from my job both bosses and members, not planning a revolution just communicating and being? mates.