The Federal Politics Thread

[rev]

The Liberals don't give a toss about the average joe worker.

And Abbott wont reveal how he will help Holden workers yet, because he is waiting for just before the state election so he can give his puppet Marshall a boost.

[monotonehell]

That's 25 broken promises to "Juliar's" one.

THE ABBOTT REGIME has reached a remarkable landmark — its 25th blatant broken promise. That’s one every six days since the September election. This achievement is astonishing for several reasons. First, because Abbott won office after a three-year campaign centred on one broken promise by Julia Gillard. Secondly, because Prime Minister Abbott has had none of the obstacles in his path which prevented the hapless Gillard from implementing Labor policy — a hung parliament, minority government, ornery Independents, an obstructionist lower house, treacherously hostile media and an opposition hell-bent on destruction.

http://www.independentaustralia.net/pol ... -days,6145

also
http://sallymcmanus.net/abbotts-wreckage/

[Will]

An interesting alternative perspective. Contrast this with the usual biased reporting on news.ltd.

From the ABC:

Workers not the culprit of productivity slide



By Ian Verrender
Posted Mon 10 Mar 2014, 7:01am AEDT



The ideological obsession with reducing wages and conditions may improve profits in the short term but could end up having a disastrous impact on our productivity, writes Ian Verrender.

It's on again: the great productivity debate.

We all know the problem. If you believe the hype, productivity in Australia has been on the slide for more than a decade. And if you listen to the pollies and the business lobby groups, there is a very simple solution - cut wages and conditions.

Superficially, the evidence is overwhelming. Toyota, Ford, Holden and a myriad other businesses have decided to close down here because production costs are too high. It's a problem replicated across small and medium-sized businesses. Coffee shops can't afford to open on the weekend because of penalty rates and union featherbedding.

It makes for a compelling argument, particularly for an electorate that has grown accustomed to the five second sound bite, repeated ad infinitum.

Unfortunately, like almost everything that passes for political discourse these days, it ignores the evidence, overlooks the logic and ploughs on through to a predictable conclusion that is entirely wrong.

This may come as a surprise, given what you've heard lately, but labour productivity actually has grown throughout the past decade. It certainly has grown at a slower rate than through the 1990s, but the real culprit for our productivity slide is capital productivity.

That's right. You could argue that it is not the workers who have been dragging the chain, it is our corporate leaders. But even that is an oversimplification of the malaise supposedly eating away at the heart of the economy.

Distressing it may be, but a great many of our business and political powerbrokers either appear to have little, if any, understanding of productivity, or deliberately choose to misconstrue the idea.

Productivity is a measure of efficiency, not cost. And our leaders tend to confuse two very different concepts: productivity and profitability.

Consider this. If you were asked to dig up the local footie field and handed a shovel, it would likely take quite a few weeks, even months. Get on board one of Kerry Stokes' spanking new earth moving machines and you'd probably get the job done in a day.

The other way to look at it would be to ask how many shovel-wielding mates it would take to dig up that field in a day. Quite a few, I'd say. Using the earth mover rather than the shovel clearly lifts labour productivity, regardless of how much you are paid or the cost of the machine.

There's another important concept to consider as well. Labour is just one of what economists term "factors of production". The other two are land and capital.

During the 1990s, Australia's overall productivity (land, labour and capital lumped together) rose at an impressive 1.6 per cent average each year. In the decade to the end of 2010, however, it stalled and on some measures, went backwards.

But consider this. Labour productivity during the first decade of the new millennium grew at an annual average rate of 1.5 per cent.

Why has our productivity growth dropped so dramatically? Unfortunately the answer is complex and doesn't fit neatly into the infantile political debate now being waged in Parliament.

Part of the answer is the resources boom. Huge amounts of capital poured into Australia since 2002 to build new mines and expand old ones. Billions upon billions of dollars of capital was employed.

But it takes years for those mines to be built and only now are we starting to see the increase in production. So, huge amounts of capital was invested. But the production (there's the operative word) has been delayed. Labour productivity in the mining sector dropped alarmingly as well because an army of workers was building extra capacity rather than digging out and shipping ore.

As those mines come on stream, our productivity naturally will rise.

Another explanation is that the productivity gains of the 1980s and 1990s - from opening up the economy to greater competition and privatising government-owned monopolies - lifted Australia to a new level. But they were one-off gains that are difficult to replicate.

Right now, our businesses are investing minimal amounts in innovations that will improve their productivity, choosing instead to pay out increased amounts to shareholders in the form dividends. It's a phenomenon that doesn't bode well for future efficiency improvements.

The ideological obsession with reducing wages and conditions may improve profits in the short term but could end up having a disastrous impact on our productivity.

Unlike land and capital, labour is the only factor of production that comes with a human being attached. Highly emotional, they can either be incredibly loyal and diligent or vindictive and lazy. Take your pick.

If you want to extract the best performance and higher output from a worker, cutting pay and conditions probably isn't the best strategy.

As a general theme, it goes against every principle of the capitalist system that theoretically is all about incentive and reward for outperformance. That's the very argument our executives have used to justify the enormous and, at times, obscene salary increases they have delivered themselves during the past three decades.

You could argue Australia is a high cost place from which to produce things. Rio Tinto chairman Jan du Plessis noted just that at the company's recent annual meeting. But he also admitted the strength of the Australian dollar was the major contributing factor.

As a nation, we avoided a wages break-out during the greatest resource investment boom the country has ever seen, at a time when we were close to full employment. And as the Australian Bureau of Statistics noted just last month, wages growth has fallen to an all-time low.

But why let the facts get in the way?

[rhino]

Excellent article Will, well worth the read.

[monotonehell]

It's surprising how little press the March In March national protests have seen. Thousands of people all over the country have assembled in every capital city and in most country centres, protesting aspects of the Abbott Government's policies.

Of the articles published, many focused on trivial matters, most under reported the quantity of people attending, and none outlined the actual message of the protests.

Channel 7 Adelaide were caught after the protest occurred attempting to make the news up, saying to camera that there were numerous arrests and trouble, until one bystander called the reporter out on her lies. In fact the assembly was very peaceful and calm, consisting mostly of families. The only arrest happened afterwards when a "scruffy sort" got into a fight with the Street Preachers who were hanging around with their anti-gay signs and slinging their usual insults.

Anyone who watched or read the news would have thought a small group of hippies were banging on about the environment. When in fact the majority of those present were average lower to middle class family members, professionals and all sorts, many who had never been to a protest in their lives, worried about where the country is heading.

Makes you wonder how informed we actually are on a whole range of issues.

[Waewick]

Not much press because they appear pointless.

How many issues where they raising seemed like 100's. so just a group of people whose only common ground was they didn't like the government because it wasn't supporting their cause?

[monotonehell]

Not much press because they appear pointless.

How many issues where they raising seemed like 100's. so just a group of people whose only common ground was they didn't like the government because it wasn't supporting their cause?

How did you decide that they appear pointless? Where did you get your information to reach that conclusion?

[Aidan]

Not much press because they appear pointless.

How many issues where they raising seemed like 100's. so just a group of people whose only common ground was they didn't like the government because it wasn't supporting their cause?

How did you decide that they appear pointless? Where did you get your information to reach that conclusion?

Protesting on a single issue has a point: the government will see how important that issue is to people and may back down. But protesting against a democratically elected government's policies in general merely shows the government that there are a lot of people who are going to vote against them at the next election. What would the Abbott government gain from doing anything other than ignoring them?

[Waewick]

Not much press because they appear pointless.

How many issues where they raising seemed like 100's. so just a group of people whose only common ground was they didn't like the government because it wasn't supporting their cause?

How did you decide that they appear pointless? Where did you get your information to reach that conclusion?

looking at the reports, looking at social media photos and peoples descriptions of what they were doing.

Aidans right, whatever they planned to do on sunday fell on deaf ears because bascially there was no message other than they don't like Abbott and feel the need to attach him to a number of negative stereotypes.

Given the signs people took, I'm not sure they even understood what they were doing.

[monotonehell]

I think Waewick and Aidan just proved my point. The media didn't report the message of the protest so you've both assumed that there was none.

[Waewick]

I think Waewick and Aidan just proved my point. The media didn't report the message of the protest so you've both assumed that there was none.

as I said, I didn't go off the media, I went of social media which was just as confusing.

so how are the media meant to report on something that even the participants aren't sure of? except a universal dislike of Abbott.

[Aidan]

OK, Mono, what do you think the message of the protest was?

And what do you think the objective of the protest was?

[jk1237]

OK, Mono, what do you think the message of the protest was?

And what do you think the objective of the protest was?

the message was that many people are not happy with this government, how obvious is it. I personally can't stand the attitude of this federal government. I find them repulsive, on so many issues.

I live in the city so I rode down for a look. I have a decent job, I have a mortgage, I come from a decent pro liberal family but felt quite happy to add to the crowd. It felt quite liberating and I think the police were totally overwhelmed by the amount of people. They were trying to get people out the way to allow trams through, but after a while they had to stop the trams due to the amount of people.

Mono is correct on how little media coverage there was. Many protests with about 60 people get more coverage, but just have a look a the abuse from the right wing nut posters on Adelaide Now about the rally and the people. This is exactly why I went caus I can't stand News Ltd and its arrangement with the Libs

[monotonehell]

The point is that the way politicians run the country is harmful. People are sick of spin, lies and doublespeak. They feel disenfranchised from the political process because once they vote, the politicians who they elect don't do what they promised, they don't listen to their electorates, they don't use reason to make policies just ideology and worse they do what their lobbyists tell them (the ones with the money to get them elected in the first pace).

It's not about Labor or Liberal, in fact Labor was on the receiving end of a fair bit of the speeches.

Here's the blurb from the about section of the March In March's Facebook page:

March In March Australia 2014 will be three days of peaceful assemblies, non-partisan citizens’ marches and rallies at Federal Parliament and around Australia to protest against government decisions that are against the common good of our nation.

This signifies a 'people’s vote of no confidence' in government policies and decisions that go against common principles of humanity, decency, fairness, social justice and equity, democratic governance, responsible global citizenship and conserving our natural heritage.

Many Australians are deeply concerned with the way our country is being governed. Not just at the present moment, but in general. They are concerned over issues which directly affect them, their families, and indeed all Australians. They are concerned about the policies and behaviour of all Australian political parties. They are concerned with the direction in which Australia’s great civil society is heading.

Democracy doesn’t end at the ballot box. It is the right, if not duty, of all Australians to hold our elected representatives to account; to remind them that they are, above all else, public servants. We must inform them regularly, daily if need be, of our concerns with the issues that affect all Australians. We must participate directly in our democracy in order for it to be truly representative.

WHAT DO WE WANT?

We know that a majority of Australians expect their government to:
- Respect the diversity of Australian families
- Respect our shared humanity and the rule of law
- Respect expert opinion in science, technology and education
- Respect Australia’s resources and heritage, now and for future generations.


Key policy areas that are covered by these four principles include:
Education.
Health care.
The environment.
Human rights.
International affairs.
Science and technology.
Trade and finance.

Within each of these areas there are dozens of specific issues that affect all Australians, now and for generations to come. It is on these issues that we must raise our voices. We all want what’s best for Australia; let’s tell our elected representatives directly how we want that to happen.

March in March.
Australians united for better government.

Easy to find and easy to comprehend.

[Waewick]

What a load of shit. Seriously.

In summary, they want the government to do what they want, regardless of others.