August 30, 2007
In a discussion of Labor's IR announcement over at Blogocracy JWH of Kirribilli (the cheek) comments "This was Rudd's big chance to differentiate his party's policies from the coalition but he has essentially defered it to the next election"
As it turns out, the differentiation lies not in current policy, but future plans we haven't heard yet. We've already heard that the coalition has more plans for deregulating IR which has the potential to frighten a lot of people, including some who feel they're doing OK so far.
What might those future plans entail? How much worse can it get?
These sorts of questions undermine the devil you know, who can you trust, battler's friend and safe pair of hands arguments that have served Howard so well.
The (incorrect) impression that Labor will take over all public hospitals is already out there. Howard has taken over one, seemingly on a whim, and his future plans for others remains a mystery. One by one maybe? In what order?
On education we know Rudd plans an Education Revolution, which has a universal ring to it. Howard on the other hand wants history taught differently and the future of public education is anyone's guess.
You never know with Howard whether you're going to get a hospital takeover, a nuclear power plant or a plebiscite. He seems to make these things up as he goes along.
What we do know, and what Rudd will no doubt remind us of at every opportunity, is that he does have plans to further deregulate industrial relations. We don't know exactly what those plans are, but it's unlikely to be pleasant.
Commenter JWH went on to say that Rudd "is determined to have the election decided on personal image rather than policy" which seems to be true. But it looks very much as though the spotlight will be on Howard's image and Howard's unannounced policy. IR is still Rudd's big chance, he's just reorganised the location of the target.
|
Lyn,
there are differences in the two IR policies that are significant from the perspective of the deregulated market. Two arguments constructed from the writings of the AFR crowd.
Rudd and Gillard give the mining companies and those on six figure salaries efficiency and flexibility re AWA's, but not to small firms, cafes and restaurants. Don't the latter need it too? Even more so?
Secondly, it is argued the politics of the workplace works for Rudd and Gillard. They are being clever as we are in boom and "fairness" can work. But come the economic downturn--- inevitable these free marketeers say--then efficiency needs to cut in to shed or cut back on the employment. But the economy will be less flexible because of rigidities cause by regulatory rules, unfair dismissal rights, and stronger unions, to ensure "fairness". Rudd and Gillard are left exposed as smarty pants.
Unpopular reforms are required to ensure the continuation of national prosperity. Rudd fails on that criteria. Howard gets the big tick. Gillard is seen as the big liability. She is the Medicare Gold lemon who has soured relations with business. Gillard is the big target.
So speak the advocates of the free or deregulated market. We must push on with the deregulatory reforms, however unpopular. Reform fatigue is not an option. Market flexibility is a must; fairness is a job as opposed to being unemployed.
I'd make two comments. The politics in this is that union power must be broken once and for all it would seem.That's the position of the mining companies is it not? Secondly, these free marrketeers , who beleive in the small state, really criticize Howard and Costello over their commitment to a high-taxing, big-spending and very centralised government.