A government I lead will always respect the central importance of successful businesses as job creators.
Spot on. Businesses create jobs. Not government. Businesses.
Governments create the environment that enables business to prosper and create new jobs.
Yes. Yes. Yes. Too much tax. Over regulation and wrong regulation impact on the ability of “business to prosper and create new jobs”
You are so close Albo. Now finish it:
This requires a partnership between government, business and unions.
Ahhh. Wrong, wrong, wrong. So close and yet so far.
It requires nothing of the sort. It requires government to get the flucking hell out of the way. It requires a partnership between business and labour. Sometimes labour can be represented by unions, and sometimes not.
What Albanese is describing is his desire for the further embedding of the 3 horsemen of the economic apocalypse – the coalition of big government, big business and big labour all working together to screw the citizen and the consumer.
The last thing Australia needs is a partnership between government, business and unions.
Meanwhile, what about the man who would be king — or one of them — Chris Bowen?
People make mistakes. The mark of a person is not that they make mistakes but what they learn from their mistakes.
One particular mistake that is too often repeated by our political overlords is focusing on what the other side say and forgetting what your side says. And this is why, perhaps, people don’t like or trust politicians.
In a generous puff piece in the Oz yesterday, Troy Bramston attempted to give the shadow minister for climate change and energy a makeover:
Bramston even gave Bowen’s new book called On Charlatans a free plug.
Fine, dandy. This stuff happens all the time from all sides of government. But please give citizens more credit. Wrote Bramston:
He (Bowen) writes that Coalition attacks on Labor policies at the 2019 election invariably were framed as us v them, tradies v greenies and regions v suburbs. It fostered division and resentment.
Really. Is this really what you are going to say about Bowen? I seem to recall a Labor campaign run on the anti-big end of town narrative. Was not that a fostering of division and resentment. How about the proposed assault on negative gearing and dividend imputation from the perspective of a generational conflict? Any division and resentment in that.
What about the prior election with Mediscare?
The us v them framing is bipartisan and perhaps the issue that Bowen is highlighting is that the LNP has become equally adept at playing division politics and the Labor party needs finds a new competitive advantage.
Then Bramston quoted Bowen with this cracker:
Following the last election, in which Labor had a large policy agenda, it is tempting to assume we should roll into a little ball and not offer any large policy differences on which our opponents can run a scare campaign,”
The lesson from the last election is not that we shouldn’t have key points of policy difference with our opponents. It’s that we need a policy agenda that better connects with the everyday lives of the people we are asking to vote for us.”
The truth is that the Labor Party does have a policy agenda targeted at the people they are looking to vote for them. The problem is that there aren’t enough inner-city, woke, anti-western intellectual public servant votes who want the ALP agenda to get the numbers in parliament to form government.
And that is the constant lesson offered but ignored by the Australian Labor Party.
Stephen Spartacus blogs at Sparty’s Cast where a version of this piece also appears.
Got something to add? Join the discussion and comment below.