Comments on: Mungo: Will Iemma crash through, or crash? http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/05/05/mungo-will-iemma-crash-through-or-crash/ now with extra source Sun, 12 Feb 2012 02:14:27 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Tom McLoughlin#2 http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/05/05/mungo-will-iemma-crash-through-or-crash/#comment-17438 Tom McLoughlin#2 Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000 #comment-17438 Just saw the 7.30 Report package here in NSW with Deborah Cornwall reporting: Much discussion of the union movement being accommodated while it's role in society has eroded. Robertson strongly points out 85% of the public don't support a sell off, and that most branch delegates similarly. What troubles me about the ideological critics of the unions is that there is constant and determined airbrush of their level of coverage in industry sectors combined with many, many free riders on past campaigns for rights and conditions. So just like the big asbestos resolution it's probably the COVERAGE, not the raw union membership, that best describes the unions' relationship to the democratic feeling of the people here in NSW at least on public energy assets. Just saw the 7.30 Report package here in NSW with Deborah Cornwall reporting: Much discussion of the union movement being accommodated while it’s role in society has eroded. Robertson strongly points out 85% of the public don’t support a sell off, and that most branch delegates similarly. What troubles me about the ideological critics of the unions is that there is constant and determined airbrush of their level of coverage in industry sectors combined with many, many free riders on past campaigns for rights and conditions. So just like the big asbestos resolution it’s probably the COVERAGE, not the raw union membership, that best describes the unions’ relationship to the democratic feeling of the people here in NSW at least on public energy assets.

]]> By: steve martin http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/05/05/mungo-will-iemma-crash-through-or-crash/#comment-17439 steve martin Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000 #comment-17439 Sure Tom McLoughlin as far as your 7:12 PM goes I agree of course.But you are speaking about a specific instance when the process may have been corrupted, I was referring to the general principle that governments are elected to govern and should not be answerable to outside parties, either union or for that matter business interests. I know that that may sound naive and utopian, but as I said I was referring to the general principle of how democracy should work. Sure Tom McLoughlin as far as your 7:12 PM goes I agree of course.But you are speaking about a specific instance when the process may have been corrupted, I was referring to the general principle that governments are elected to govern and should not be answerable to outside parties, either union or for that matter business interests. I know that that may sound naive and utopian, but as I said I was referring to the general principle of how democracy should work.

]]> By: steve martin http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/05/05/mungo-will-iemma-crash-through-or-crash/#comment-17440 steve martin Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000 #comment-17440 "But he did so without providing a definitive answer to the question: does the ultimate control of the ALP rest with the rank and file membership or with the elected parliamentary leader." He may not have given a definitive answer, but as far as I am concerned (although not a NSW voter) the ultimate control should be with the persons elected by the long suffering voters, not by a conference with no mandate from the people. Certainly when a party stands at a general election the voters need to have an idea of the party's political program, but from the time that they are elected to office the buck stops with them. If they transgress the people will have their say at the next election. I believe it's known as democracy. “But he did so without providing a definitive answer to the question: does the ultimate control of the ALP rest with the rank and file membership or with the elected parliamentary leader.”
He may not have given a definitive answer, but as far as I am concerned (although not a NSW voter) the ultimate control should be with the persons elected by the long suffering voters, not by a conference with no mandate from the people. Certainly when a party stands at a general election the voters need to have an idea of the party’s political program, but from the time that they are elected to office the buck stops with them. If they transgress the people will have their say at the next election. I believe it’s known as democracy.

]]> By: Engineer http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/05/05/mungo-will-iemma-crash-through-or-crash/#comment-17441 Engineer Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000 #comment-17441 Steve and Tom, you are wasting your grey matter. The issue is: whether the residents of NSW deserve to have assets built up through the years sold to foreign interests in order to satisfy some esetoric economic principle. The likely buyers of our assets will be the Saudi, Singaporean or Chinese governments - all totalitarian. For goodness' sake, wake up! The power company which supplies NSW soon may well be no different from the next corrupted and worthless Enron. Do you enjoy visiting Sydney airport, now that the cheapest drop-off is about $20? Do you enjoy paying MacBank tolls to use the State's roads? Australia used to be a nation of can-do folk who worked together to build the SECV under General Sir John Monash. the Snowy River Scheme and the Electricity Commission of NSW, the postal and telephone system and so forth. Are we really better off by selling most of these things? Are we a prouder and fairer nation? Sell-offs of public enterprises are always failures. Steve and Tom, you are wasting your grey matter. The issue is: whether the residents of NSW deserve to have assets built up through the years sold to foreign interests in order to satisfy some esetoric economic principle.

The likely buyers of our assets will be the Saudi, Singaporean or Chinese governments - all totalitarian. For goodness’ sake, wake up! The power company which supplies NSW soon may well be no different from the next corrupted and worthless Enron.

Do you enjoy visiting Sydney airport, now that the cheapest drop-off is about $20? Do you enjoy paying MacBank tolls to use the State’s roads? Australia used to be a nation of can-do folk who worked together to build the SECV under General Sir John Monash. the Snowy River Scheme and the Electricity Commission of NSW, the postal and telephone system and so forth.

Are we really better off by selling most of these things? Are we a prouder and fairer nation?

Sell-offs of public enterprises are always failures.

]]> By: Tom McLoughlin http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/05/05/mungo-will-iemma-crash-through-or-crash/#comment-17442 Tom McLoughlin Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000 #comment-17442 Well that mandate theory might hold more water Steve Martin, if Saturday's front page story was not about 800 business donors receiving legal letters from the NSW electoral commission to please explain why they ought not be prosecuted for failure to disclose political donations ... leading up to the March 2007 state election. In other words not only did Iemma deliberately lie about the public energy policy, but he did it largely financed by big business in an irregular way. So no, it's not about which theory of democracy is better - party or elected. It's about honesty versus dishonesty. And that's a real principle with real implications for systemic corruption worth taking a stand over. I feel you will probably agree with the concern when put like that too? Well that mandate theory might hold more water Steve Martin, if Saturday’s front page story was not about 800 business donors receiving legal letters from the NSW electoral commission to please explain why they ought not be prosecuted for failure to disclose political donations … leading up to the March 2007 state election. In other words not only did Iemma deliberately lie about the public energy policy, but he did it largely financed by big business in an irregular way. So no, it’s not about which theory of democracy is better - party or elected. It’s about honesty versus dishonesty. And that’s a real principle with real implications for systemic corruption worth taking a stand over. I feel you will probably agree with the concern when put like that too?

]]>