Should / can Labor distance itself from unions?

Do you think the ALP can distance itself from the unions?

 

You think so? I agree with him! I feel you like a lot of others, are over thinking the whole thing.

 

My point entirely, BUT the thing you have to remember is that the mining boom has been a major part of the Australian economy. Many governments have used it to push the Australian economy, including the ALP using to save their arse during the GFC.

Why did it reach its peak under Howard??? Was it because the ALP tried to squeeze the resources sector to cover its own inept policy management??? Or do you believe that it is because it has run its course???

Who created the ability for Howard to capitalise on the mining sector??? Was Howard the main driver for China to buy Australian resources??? The problem you seem to have is your blind hatred of the Coalition. Nothing of substance appears to come forward because you would simply rather find fault with the Coalition you mark everything down to them.

And??? Do you consider that speculation on what WOULD have happened means anything other than your sour grapes???

So now you’re saying that they WOULD have managed thing better but if you believe that you must be wearing rose coloured glasses???

Fact is you show such shallow view of what is really happening. Obviously you had major problem with understanding what was said to you. So perhaps if you ask where you have trouble, I could rephrase just to help you along. Unfortunately, though I think your sour grapes will only cloud your view...

 

It seems to me many of these things are like pendulums.. swinging from one extreme to another, until, hopefully, we reach a balance of equilibrium. But i tend to agree that most big unions are out of touch with the rank & file. They are like elite politicians, who talk & swagger, but don't really represent the workers. It seems that 'labor' parties, whether in au, or gb or us, get detached from the people they allege to represent, & promote some agenda that the union leaders have adopted.. usually some socialist flavored ideology.

 

Because China demanded it at this point in time, it had absolutely nothing to do with John Howard, nor P.Costello.....
Its not that difficult to understand, is it?
regards

- - - Updated - - -

There are some true words in your comment....

 

Oh, that's right, everything needs to be in black and white. I keep forgetting you get easily confused, when things get a little complex. Threads are fluid little creatures aren't they?

 

How is a refugee living in a refugee camp with shelter, food, and water, a million times worse off than an Australian homeless person living under a bridge or in a park with NO access to shelter, food, and water?

I think you have your priorities backwards. Its not the point that we will never accomplish building 1.3 million homes for Australians. The point is we don't have 1.3 million homes for low income or homeless Australians, and you want to bring over another 100,000 refugees who will directly compete with Australia's low income people and homeless people for the limited resources of public housing that is currently available. I'm sorry, but that makes no sense, allowing foreigners to compete with Australians for an already limited resource like public housing. If we have 1 house available, you either want Australians to be housed in that home, or you want a refugee to be housed in that home, because you cannot have it both ways.

 

Obviously, you show exactly how ignorant of what really happens in politics and economy...
While you now want to pretend that you said something different, How does this differ from what I have already stated OTHER than the sour grapes of your hatred and vitriol of your prejudice except I do not simply discount the politics that were played???

To add, Keating promoted an atmosphere to allow China to pursue markets in Australia, while Howard continued to promote such. Pretending NOTHING was done is simply showing so much ignorance that one has to laugh at such shallow understanding of how the world works…
So how does this comment of yours refute what I have already stated??? Oh that’s right is doesn't you are simply opposing anything...

 

CD,
I trust you are living in your own 4x2, paid off a couple of years ago. Kids grown up and left as well. So plenty of space.
As you are so defending of our homeless, why not take some people off the streets into your home and just show us, what a good Aussie you are, fair dinkum to Aussies first.....
Or too afraid that you might get the wrong ones in?
Regards

 

Don't you know the difference between emotion and logic? How can you logically suggest refugees with access to shelter, water and food are a million time worse off than a group of Australia's homeless people, who don't have any access to shelter, water and food? Your logic then dictates we bring these refugees into Australia, who will then directly compete with the homeless people of Australia for limited public housing resources.

Have you ever considered for a second the reason why there is now 1 million Australians waiting on lists for low income public housing homes, and 300,000 homeless people without shelter, is because the refugees and asylum seekers are directly competing with Australians for these resources, and are given these public properties over Australians? Do yourself a favour, and walk around the streets at night, and around the food vans that supply food to Australia's hungry and homeless, and see if you can identify any refugees or asylum seekers among the people. You will not see any refugees or asylum seekers that have came to Australia being homeless, or living in cardboard boxes, or hanging around charity food vans, because its the only meal they will get all day. These situations are happening only to Australians, because the bloody refugees and asylum seekers have been given the limited accommodation over Australians. You won't see a refugee or asylum seeker living in a garage or tent waiting for a public housing property like Australians and Australian families are forced to do, they get priority public housing accommodation as soon as they are released from detention or the refugee status is granted.

While we are making our own people stay homeless for the sake of strangers, I wonder if the situation was reversed, would refugee Australians get priority housing in their countries over "their" homeless people. I don't think so.

 

Time to wake up and use Australian money to help Australian people first, and when we have accomplished that, then we can start helping others.

 

The core problem we are facing is a huge number of untrained/uneducated young people, a political issue which was never targeted by either left or right.
As long as those people are willing to work whatever they can find and behave in a normal way, I have no problems with that. If not, they can go to hell.
However, the low education level remains a big big problem, and the unwillingness sometimes as well.
People from war zones don't have choices, I am afraid. They most often are extremely thankful. I've met some........
regards

 

What do you mean by "over thinking?"
Is that the opposite to over simplifying? Or have I just reached a level that you aren`t comfortable with?

 

You still haven`t quoted a figure of the number of untrained/uneducated refugees you`re prepared to accept. From memory, last time I asked you, you said something to the effect of "whoever wants to come here". How do you propose that will work?

 

Some are eager to work, others aren't. By the way, you should change your pseudonym to *twister*......

 

Please just tell us how many uneducated, unskilled people you`d like to see come into Australia on an annual basis. Would you like to see 600,000, or a million? How many?

 

The only reason why we have untrained and uneducated young and older people in Australia, is because of an issues I raised before, regarding our stupid and incompetent Australian politicians favouring to give $80 million of Australian tax payer money to educate Syrian children, but only offered $30 million to educate Australians transitioning from vehicle manufacturing employment to another employment sector.

When we have limited financial resources, and then we have stupid politicians who prefer to give away those limited financial resources to help support foreigners and strangers over our own people, then of course we are going to end up with a country of untrained and uneducated citizens of all ages.

You call "Aussiefree" a twister, but you have also not answered the fundamental question of who is entitled to Australia's limited public housing. "Low income Australian's who have been waiting on list for years, and the Australian homeless, or refugees and asylum seekers, because you cannot have it both ways when the resources are not available to support the demand?"

How the hell is it logical to give support, and an advantage to strangers over our own people, when we don't have the finances or the resources to help both? Borrowing money from a bank (which Australia is doing now) to help support strangers is staggering stupidity. No one in real life does this, or would contemplate doing this, so why the hell are Australian tax payers being forced to do it?

If politicians want to "big-note" themselves, and financially support strangers over Australians, then they can donate that money out of their own pockets, because I don't agree with this level of stupidity.

 

I call Aussiefree a twister, as he is certainly not *free*, but twist often what others say. Not the first time ....

If you don't want us to take war refugees, we have to leave the civilized world, leave the treaty we once signed....

80 million to Syrian kids, are you serious?

Regards

 

$80 million to Syrian kids - very serious. Abbott announced it on TV. Two weeks later, he announced he was giving a lousy $30 million to help re-educate and transition Australian workers from vehicle manufacturing to other employment. Really bloody fair, Syrian kids get $80 million, and our workers get $30 million.

I'm not against taking refugees, but Australia is not in a financial situation, or has the resources of being able to support foreigners and our own people, or have you not been watching the news of late.

We are borrowing money from banks to help support foreign people, and if that make sense to you, then we are in serious trouble. Where do you think the $80 million came from - borrowed money that we have to pay back in interest.

Since 2011, we have given Syria $130million, and yet our own citizens have to beg for table scraps.

 

Panty bunching aside. Do you think the ALP can distance itself from the unions?

 

Waiting for substantiation. Something sensible, and mature would be nice.

 

No, they shouldn't drop the unions. What they should do is stick to their guns. If that means they are less relevant than they once were - then so be it. What IS required is more honesty about their positions on issues and not pretend.

It's like asking The Greens: "should the Greens drop their environmental advocacy?" or the Nats "should the Nats drop their country advocacy?" or the Libs "should the Libs drop their corporate advocacy?".

IF Labor dropped the unions, what would be their differentiating point?

 

Working Australians need political representation. The ALP presently fails in this. The ALP in it`s current form, is seen as the poor relation to the behind the scene, union power brokers. Democracy doesn't work this way.

 

.......exactly!

 

Hi,
what a coincidence, we met a lady yesterday, who is a union member.
Talking about politics and the importance of unions anno 2014, even she conceded that the role of unions in the Labor Party is unhealthy and that the party should not have them interfere too much...
Yeap, couldn't agree more.
However, I believe we need the unions, just not the way they play the fiddle.
Regards