Beazley steps up his attack

[cal04]

JOHN Howard was imposing a "nasty, right-wing" plan to Americanise the workplace, Kim Beazley declared yesterday, as he promised to "dismantle" the Government's industrial package. In his strongest condemnation of the workplace revolution, a fired-up Opposition Leader blasted the Prime Minister for his "ideological version" of Australia.

Mr Howard, he said, was determined to "tear this country apart - to set family against family and friend against friend". A rowdy debate saw another raft of Labor MPs ejected from parliament, with the Opposition launching a concerted attack against Mr Howard during question time.

Senior Labor figures believe the Government will have great difficulty selling its changes to the public. Mr Beazley, struggling to improve his approval rating, is using the industrial relations changes to mount perhaps his strongest attack against his political nemesis. "It's not an academic debate about labour market institutions and productivity growth," he said. "This is about basic values ... it's about the kind of Australia we want our kids to grow up in."

He likened the draft laws to a nest of termites, that will "in the months and years ahead ... slowly eat away at the foundations of living standards of Australian families". "Today, one man's tired old dream becomes a living nightmare for all Australians."

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,17134510%255E601,00.html

[Matilda]

1. Yes, Labor's making a good show in Parliament on this.

Very raucous - I suspect all the ejections from Parliament have been
carefully scripted, but it's a good tactic. I notice that all the
Labor MPs are wearing big yellow buttons with writing on them, but
I haven't been able to make out what they say.

The unions are also threatening strike action - although strikes
will be virtually outlawed under the new legislation, they say they
don't care, they're prepared to go to jail anyway. Of course,
massive fines could ruin them, so I hope they have contingency plans
for that.

They have to make a fight of this one of course, otherwise Labor
would lose the entire union base.

[Generarth]

2. Making up for his total lack of opposition

to the terror laws. He's also asked JH to justify the economic benefits of the IR package a challenge that should never have been thrown. Beazley just doesn't have it Im afraid.

[foreigncorrespondent]

3. I intend to agree with you!

The ALP needs new blood as a new leader. Someone who can put on quite a show and bring the massses back to the party. That is the only way, we are going to be able to stop the right wing in this country for years to come.

[Matilda]

4. But who is there?

Rudd is the obvious successor, and I don't doubt he'll do it, maybe
between now and the election, because Beazley is a dead weight (pun
intended) the Party can't afford to carry.

He's capable, articulate and intelligent, but - like everyone else
I can think of - he lacks passion. That's one thing Latham had;
probably the only thing he had. Howard has the advantage of running
as an incumbent who's presided over years of prosperity, and the
electorate will overlook his lies and deviousness because they're
prospering. So the Opposition leader needs a strong personality
who must convey his message with power to stand up against
Howard.

I look at all the hopefuls, including Rudd and Gillard, who should
be the next leader and deputy, but I don't see them causing any
great interest, let alone excitement. There's a lot of people who
are probably capable in various portfolios, but I don't see a real,
natural leader.

Except Jon Stanhope, but he can't even run until the next election
and he'd have to serve at least two terms before he could become
leader. But he's sure got the guts.

:banghead:

[foreigncorrespondent]

5. I wish I knew mate!

But right now to me, they all stem from the same mould. ALP and Liberal alike.

[Matilda]

6. But it means Howard gets re-elected - again.

That's what I can't stand - Labor's handing it to him on a plate.

Why would anyone vote for Labor when they're exactly the same?
And why can't the ALP understand this?