The Forum > General Discussion > Gillard Labor and the Union movement.
Gillard Labor and the Union movement.
- Pages:
-
- Page 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
-
- All
Posted by Belly, Friday, 18 February 2011 2:31:06 PM
| |
Hi Bells.
she is doing what the focus groups and survey's are telling her mate. Politics is about numbers.. you know that. She has been told "In the marginal seats you rely on.. significant numbers of people perceive labor as a 'front for unions' and refuse to vote for them. (I'm talking 'swinging' voters here) It works like this: 1/ Traditional vote is secure. Parties don't need to worry about it. (Safe seats) 2/ Elections are won/lost based on 'swinging' voters, not the traditional base. 3/ If 1 & 2 above are true, then the public pronouncements of Parties will reflect NOT there traditional brand, but the opinions of those SWINGING voters. I now pronounce you 'fixed' :) Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Saturday, 19 February 2011 4:29:29 AM
| |
Many issues for one thread.
One outstanding fact, Gillard is divisive, she can not unite my party, but can add to the fact we are seen to be moving away from our history. Union involvement the pros and cons, there are many, on both sides. Having given birth to the party unions once held far too much power within the party. This power has been used to harm as often as help the ALP. Unions are the foot soldiers of the party. far too often Parliament has been the reward for some true failures from the union movement, a reward to move them on to new grounds to fail in. Some true left who inhabit in both groups are of no use to the movements they live in. Crean, came from unions group and while doing a reasonable job,like his mentor, or is it the other way around? Gillard, has no loyalty to the ladder he climbed to get in the Parliament. I welcome the inquiry,even Gillards unfocused rock throwing at Howes but note much of the failure in this Parliament and the last lives still in her Cabernet not the rank and file. Posted by Belly, Saturday, 19 February 2011 4:45:02 AM
| |
Gillard has her faults but she is light-years ahead of Howes.
I could not believe his little dummy spit: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/02/16/3140097.htm --"monkeys could do a better job of managing Rio Tinto" --"You cannot hide behind your slimy, grubby mates in the Coalition because we're coming after you," Is this how a future national leader talks? If Howes is the best Labor can do re finding a “man of the future” ---the Liberals have nothing to worry about. Posted by SPQR, Saturday, 19 February 2011 7:33:16 AM
| |
julia isnt the problem
she has been targeted even has been mind controlled..[set up] her partner is her minder..dumping him would see ..the old julia return to her roots.. this is a global cabal that runs the boys club globally it works by setting out to seduce likely woman..and installing a minder over them..then getting them elected we had enough of blokes think woman couldnt possably be 'in' the boys club but fail to look at their minders/partners advisers and peers look kevi was too much a loose cannon they wanted a mind controled slave julia was it... [but not julia alone...look for the female cauchus;held in womans rest rooms now ..apparently..each doing their minder's bidding] its not easy to seduce a woman but get a loyal one...re programe em well it works we dont need to get rid of julia just get rid of the minders ps the union movement sold out the workers long ago the party is only after workers to man the booth's[blog] etc no one gets a say on party policy or what the caucus is doing because the minders want it that way party policy is treason to the people govt is meant to serve its time we abolished all parties..thats the root of the problem what next..is too easy those wanting to serve the people do a course... [all nomitations for any govt dept/office/position] those who ...*top the course..get the job thus we get the best ..doing their best [by contracted terms] and get rid of the party boy dross filling the benches ..with two party/boys clubssscumm [as in that fluffy dross currently foating abouve it all] [filling bums on seats..but little else except improving their party loyalty pact] for future honours ..and a future seat ..on a public board or nice subsised pension benifits.. for a job not propiatiously done for the good of the people.. nor their common wealth.. common weal-trust] Posted by one under god, Saturday, 19 February 2011 7:34:55 AM
| |
I have read,then read again every word written here,SPQR wins the most remote from reality one.
Yep under stand what I said, Paul Howes is not yet running for office. His union has our next leader already in the house Bill Shorten, Howes sin? being honest speaking the truth. Reo Tinto has as one of its big share holders our blessed English queen. And will carry out any dirty deed to stop its workers being paid going rates. OUG you win an Honorable mention, if fact I cheated. What part should unions play in the future. How honest is the review in saying branches will change, from the private property they so very often are. The very elderly and very unaware are wheeled in on election night to vote as told. Left controlled branches have more refugees than active members. Recent party history has seen branches ignored and star candidates given a seat, even not being members of the party until weeks before being put in. Why not mention the seat holders who bought about the last election result, and sponsored the death of branch system. Why did those we put in power fight so much they left ETS and so much more to rot on the ground. Lost membership from 2007 was not lost, it was driven out the door by force. Even now, the thing most responsible for the death in NSW Obied is trying to betray us again, installing his grubs in the half cricket team we will have left. Change HQ change the perceived ownership young upwardly mobile suits claims or forget rebuilding. Posted by Belly, Saturday, 19 February 2011 10:05:52 AM
|
She is no protector of workers rights, rather sell her self than the justice she once fought so hard for.
In part she may well have a point,not all union input in to the party unions founded is worth while.
However her comments re Howes and Ludwig are quite gutless.
I do not call for more mining tax,while the first deal was fairer this one unsettles the self interests of miners and share holders,mostly over seas less.
But on a day Labor tables its reforms, aimed at rebuilding the party and dropping union influence in its child, not all is fine.
Can we look at now,not unions distant past,and the difference in unions not just the bad,and there are many, unions.
AWU conference saw the best of unions being represented by the future leaders of this country.
Gillard in my view is not part of that future.