In breaking news, the government’s opinion polls have collapsed dramatically (fancifully, Nielsen shows Labor well into double digits on the 2pp, but Newspoll also shows an almost double digit split, and the pm’s popularity polls have also collapsed: links soon). Prediction: John Howard will claim his IR arguments have been ‘unfairly dismissed’.
Update: Gratten reports the “Labor leads by 16 points” 2pp found by the Nielsen poll (this is surely exaggerated and opens up the way for a ‘government claws back’ story: call me paranoid, but poll shifts this size don’t happen - this is due to a correction to Nielsen’s longstanding error on its primary count). Still, the good news keeps right on a-coming. For the first time since May 2001, more citizens disapprove of Howard than the reverse. And, whacko, at 45-43, even windbag Beazley is within the margin of error of being in front of His Total Darkness on the preferred pm score. Newspoll has the ALP a more realistic 8 points in front with a 2pp of 54/46. Imagine a rodent political implosion! Must go and lie down.
Ah, that’s some news to warm the heart.
I was asked at pub trivia tonight who’d be the next Liberal PM. My argument was that there won’t be one for a while - Howard will contest the next election and lose. However, I wasn’t quite prepared to stake money. Also avoided staking money on the 12th doggies race at Cranbourne (nb - said trivia located in pub!)…
Look, there’s a long way to go. Already, however, Greg Combet is owed great credit for placing the labour movement on the front foot in this struggle. There’s a long way to go, yet it’s been a long time between drinks. Cheers comrades. Tomorrow, we start again!
I bet that Howard would win the last election. But I bet that, if he keeps the IR legislation on the books, he will lose the next election.
The politics of aggressive national security, conservative cultural identity, spendthrift financial prosperity and progressive social equity have kept him in power for a decade. But the signs are clear that the first three are running out of steam.
If he sticks with the regressive politics of IR he can no longer pose as the workers friend and the battlers spokesman. There must be more than a few nervous Liberal backbenchers crossing their fingers that Barnaby might cross the floor.
Not so fast! Remember that the latest Morgan poll has the Coalition in front, and that is traditionally Labor’s most favourable poll! And we are two years out from an election - bringing the IR laws in now is a master stroke by Howard as I’d be surprised if they would have any political impact by next March or April.
I predict the next Labor Prime Minister will be Bill Shorten, circa 2016.
nostrodamus is incorrect.
both Newspoll and Neilsen show the same results. morgan is the aberrant one.
IR is biting Howard on the bum bigtime and it is only going to get worse.
Too early to get excited.
The government has a huge fiscal surplus just waiting to be handed out during the last buget before the election. The bribes will close the gap.
The good numbers just keep coming - like last year.
That said: if Labor can’t capitalise on the IR changes and the “about time” factor to win the next election, they probably won’t for a long time after that.
Do I hear the phrase ‘Drover’s dog’ in the air or is it all about a pooch that should have been retired long ago?
Either way, His Darkness appears to have successfully laid so much political poison around he thinks ‘for all of us’ means ‘for all of moi’.
I just wish that ad was still around or Combet’s ACTU bought the company:
”Give Rats the Sack, with Rat-sack” (on the back of the packet, given a easily identifiable double meaning and to comply with the law, “Written by Greg Combet Australian Council of Trade Unions”)
(Plug: Julia Gillard for PM)
Morgan has sure got me beat this time, showing 50.5/49.5 in favour of the government. The only straw to clutch in explanation is that Morgan polled a week earlier, immediately after the terrorist arrests and before the day of protest, but even then …
Put another way: if the ALP cannot win the next election running on an anti-IR pro-social equity platform then it proves that Australia has shifted to the Dry side in both culture and economics.
It would be time for the Larva Prodders to act on the long-contemplated re-location to Canada.
It’d be interesting to see if the drop in support for the Libs varied across occupations - I wonder if their blue collar support is decreasing? If so the Lib MPs for Greenway, Lindsay, Macarthur, Longman, Dickson, Forde, Bonner, and Bonython (amonst others surely) must be concerned.
Too cold, and anyway who knows what will happen in the Canadian election in a few months?
Sacha’s right - it’d be very interesting to see some numbers on the government’s support in particular income and geographical demographics.
Analysis of what the government proposes for further workplace relations reform demonstrates quite clearly that it is incremental and actually far from radical, a fact sensible people on the Left know very well indeed.
There seems no reason to support a union-run scare campaign, unless of course you’re the Labor Party in desperate need of an issue.
The next election is a long way away. I suggest a lot more will roll back - probably over Kim Beazley: nice face, shame about the (lack of policy) legs - by that time.
Opinion polls respond to many things, including in this case misplaced concerns based on fables retailed by the union movement which is fighting not only for relevance in the modern workplace, but also for its survival.
Labor’s primary source of funding is the union movement. Those disposed to believe the big bad wolf is coming to blow the workhouse down should pause to consider to rampant self-interest in the Labor Party’s position.
Sure has been fun listening on the hour to the increasingly hysterical Howard wheelie-bin, Kevin Andrews, going hysterical over the ACTU’s “hysterical” advertising! Now Kev, who exactly was it that spent over fifty freakin’ million dollars in public money on a wall-to-wall advertising campaign that was packed with lies? Have a lie down Kev. Heh.
Analysis of what the government proposes for further workplace relations reform demonstrates quite clearly that it is incremental and actually far from radical, a fact sensible people on the Left know very well indeed.
Nonsense piled upon nonsense, Richard.
How’s it going out there on Mars, Richo? Had a good perihelion? Sucks about the elliptoid orbit buddy, this years aphelion’s gonna be extra frosty!
All the best,
Leinad
Planet Earth
I am omre interested in howard’s reaction.
Will he replicate Chifley or Menzies?
It’s a good and difficult question Homer. I for one will die a disappointed man if Howard retires undefeated.
I actually think he will do a chifley.
ever since the last election he has been in Keating mode.
he is convinced he is right on IR and like Bank nationalisation with Chifley it is very important to him.
Unfortunately it isn’t labour market deregulation and actually gives bad companies carte blanche.
today tonight and A current Affair will be licking their lips in gratitude!
I think the rodent will hand over the reigns just as the horse has bolted.
Another possible parallel lies in the - as I vaguely recall - theory that Keating lost the ‘96 election very early on at the time of the protracted debate over the Dawkins’ post-election budget, which was seen in many parts as a betrayal of the trust just granted the government.
Tony Harris, writing in the Fin today, pointed out that if the piffle from the ACCI and the business shills for the Government is to be believed about higher wages, we’ll probably get a wages breakout and it will actually be in their interest to oppose the “reforms”.
And the rather ironic point that the massively interventionist re-regulation of the labour market should logically entail the power of the Gov’t to set maximum wages if the HC accepts what appears to be the government’s view of the corporations power - so a gov’t in pursuit of cheap headlines could cap executive salaries. That should have a few of the BCA crowd thinking twice before they reach into their pockets to fund more delightfully ineffective advertising.
I’m increasingly of the view that these changes and the grassroots campaign against them will lose the election for the Libs almost regardless of the quality of the Beazley opposition. That wouldn’t be the best thing, but the pattern does seem to be that govts lose elections - so one is perversely tempted to recommend a small target strategy for the Beazer - ie wheel him out occasionally at a rally, but leave the heavy hitting to good communicators such as Combet.
I think there are indeed parallels with 94 - certainly the feeling of most ALP folks I talked to at the time was that the government was more or less fucked after the Dawkins budget and it would have taken a mighty effort to recapture momentum. Significant too were the morale destroying effects over time of consistent unpopularity and the way the media turned on Keating.
Given the nature of the Australian press, one couldn’t rule this out. They could instantly forget that Howard is supposed to be politically untouchable, and declare him “out of touch”, “too old”, etc.
These figures are certainly encouraging; they indicate that there is little public support for the IR legislation and that voters are prepared to switch sides on that issue alone.
That being said, it would be most foolish to assume that the ALP will win on that issue alone; although we need to campaign on this issue with fortitude and without hesitation. Sleazzzzzzzzzeby (note that I spelt his name with only nine “z”s not the usual ten) today said that he would issue a family-fair IR system sometime next year. We need to keep the IR in the foreground all the way until the next election; so in the meantime we need delaying tactics and a high court challenge, when that fails is a time to put up our alternative.
The forces of Good also need to make clear-cut policy plans to differentiate ourselves from the ruling regime; on social policy and the direction of our country. We need to publicise a proposed plebiscite on a republic; we need to affirm our commitment to a universally funded public health system, and guaranteed availability of medical and surgical procedures for termination of pregnancy for all women. We also need to commit to supporting students and the most vulnerable, and to halt the commercialisation of universities into degree stores. And a statement on human rights and reconciliation would be in order as well.
The hubris of the Howard Government has presented us with a chance to capitalize, we must not be complacent or blow it. After all we are two years from an election, and two years is a long time for the reactionary forces to concoct another nefarious scheme like Tampa. YOU should help out in your local union campaigns and branch meetings and send in thoughts to the party’s upper cogs. And be ever vigilant for parasites which may infiltrate - after all a Landeryou Labor Government is no better than a Costello Liberal one.
Yes I recall that that the ALP’s popularity went way down after the Dawkins budget a few months after the ‘93 election, especially as they increased sales taxes after have just opposed a GST, and its popularity never really recovered.
I think that it’s quite possible that Howard has overreached himself, although things were not dissimilar with the introduction of the GST. In this case, though, we have a policy that was NOT taken to the last election, so they can’t say “we have a mandate” (there’s very little use of the m word) - recall that the m word was heavily used in introducing the private health fund rebate, the GST, and Senate reform.
I suspect that the IR changes will dislodge part of the howard coalition.
By the howard coalition I mean the coalition of voters, not the political parties.
By the howard coalition I mean the coalition of voters.
As I’ve argued before, Sacha, the big difference with the GST was that its effects were largely predictable. It’s also worth emphasising that the Gov’t wheeled Fels out with his high media profile and made much of its enforcement attempts against price gouging. With WorkChoices, it creates continuing uncertainty even if people’s immediate circumstances don’t change, and attempts to invoke legal protections (for instance through costly and uncertain litigation in the case of unlawful dismissal) will only highlight the downsides.
I think the GST comparision is way overdone. First, AWAs are already out there, and there are already many bad news stories asociated with them. Second, when the law is passed, basically bugger all will happen, for this is a slow poison, which will gradually knock over its targets, creating a bubbling supply of fresh horror stories to reinforce the sense of the change in workplace power relations that it will bring about - in other words, it will never be able to be ‘bedded down’, so to speak, like the gst. Third, and most important, there was a sense in which everyone was subject to the gst impost, whereas this is plainly inequitable for one class only. Fourth, there was, in truth, a degree of ambivalence on the labour movement’s side about the GST, for many believed that more public revenue was needed (Keating had supported a gst, remember, and the Evatt Foundation, for example, put out a big fat report supporting a gst type tax in 1988).
In all these respects, the comparison fails: 1) it is already a known product that stinks and this law will only make it all worse; 2) there is no big bang and it’s all over; 3) it’s class specific; and 4) there is no ambivalence whatsoever on the labour movment’s side this time round.
The Tony Harris column I referred to earlier in comments is posted at Troppo.
Thanks, Mark and cs - another thing about the IR laws is that they may affect how secure people feel about employment - while the gst only affected prices - security is a key human drive.
Ok, ok, I know it’s slightly off-topic, but I thought that people might be interested in this e-mail petition to Barnaby - people are currently signing it at a rate of approx. 1 per second.
http://www.rightsatwork.com.au/campaigns/takeastand
Sacha
Ladies and gentleman. You really do seem to be an excitable bunch. The idea that polls can track election results 2 years out is laughable. Sure one of you may be able to drag out some bit of info. that shows it can happen. But look, the IR changes haven’t yet been put into place!
We may well have a change of Government at the next election if there is a recession and the Government gets blamed for it. Otherwise no, the lectorate at large other than Balmain and Carlton are very happy with Howard running the show. If he runs he will get another term in office and then retire.
There is something to be said for the recent stats that came out. OZ is the 13 largest economy in the world and has a per cap income placing us at number 8 in the world. This isn’t bad. People feel it. Some can say the Governement can’t get credit for for , but the electorate will give credit no matter how unjust.
So CS, you may actually die a disappointed old man.
Cs certainly said that it was nothing to pin excessive hopes on, Joe, but it’s clear that such a quick shift in the absence of any particularly stellar performance from the ALP should ring big alarm bells for the Howardians.
As to the economy, the same people who were worried about the precariousness of their financial position with regard to interest rates last time will be a large component of those who are prepared to shift their votes over a huge source of financial insecurity. There is no doubt whatever that factors such as the abolition of the unfair dismissal provisions, and the general power shift in workplace relations that will occur, will markedly increase perceived job insecurity.
Otherwise no, the lectorate at large other than Balmain and Carlton are very happy with Howard running the show.
So a 2.6 per cent majority at the last election is the ‘lectorate at large’. And there I was, not knowing all this time that 47.4 per cent of Australia’s voters live in Balmain and Carlton. Well, live and bloody learn and there you go. Cool Joe. With 2.6 per cent to lose, and already down 8-16 per cent one year into his term, why Howard’s obviously as safe as … hmmm … what’s safe these days?
The welfare reforms are going to dump a bucket of petrol onto the IR bonfire as well. An enormous slice of the community are suddenly going to be “back in the workforce” and faced with the choice of either accepting workchoices’ minimum standards ($12.75 per hr etc) or having their centrelink payment suspended.
The government isn’t picking off sectors with this stuff, they’re hitting everyone - young people, unemployed, the disabled, single parents, the sick. Everyone in the country is going to know someone with a bad story to tell.
I’m starting to think that the forces of darkness are believing their own spin - that the abstract voter is only concerned about interest rates. With luck, they’ll keep believing this until it’s too late.
CS
Good point. 3% is not a failure proof result. But as I said we are two years away from the next election.
Truth be told a lot of people on the right wouildn’t have a problem with big Kim when he is not playing to the peanut gallery that sits behind in Parliament.
I know the IR deregulation is not identical to the changes in NZ, which in my book are the real thing. However if you look at the recent election in NZ, Labor did not go to the polls with a policy of doing away with deregulation. I wonder why? All major political parties these days go through life doing extensive polling. If the big gal in NZ thought she could win a couple of dozen more votes there (it counts in NZ) by proposing to scrap dereg. she would have done so in a flash. She didn’t! Why? Because it was a non starter of a policy. I think the same thing CCould happen here. Labor again is not playing this smart. Rather than simply voice it opposition to the changes and be done with it, they are behaving in a way that seems childish and dumb. Nothing is certain in politics. The electorate may not think these policy changes are that bad in two years time (New Zealand seems to prove it) and rather than painting themselves into a corner they won’t be able to get out of, Labor has just done that- paint themselves into a corner.
The left are looking more and more like drama queeens over this IR thing. In fact it looks like they would like to see it fail rather than succeed. I am not usure the electorate wants to like a party that hopes for failure rather than success. Failure means peoples’ jobs are on the line.
Hoping for failure is not the way to win the hearts of voters. They seee through that.
By the way, CS, why do you say that Nielsen has a problem with primary votes? They had the most accurate Labor primary in the 2004 election (although the Coalition was not so good) and their 2pp was the best of the big three in 2001 and 2004.
Not sayin’ yer wrong or anything, just curious.
CS. Mark
People don’t at first don’t like change in their life. We all know that. And sure these IR deregs are big changes. However despite the fact that people on the right think they are a good idea because the economics is right on, it doesn’t mean they will gel with the electorate. However it doesn’t mean they won’t either.
The best way forward for Labor would have been to take a quiet, opposing view to the changes and then sit on the fence and stay silent. In other words play a good hand of poker. All they had to do then was read the tea leaves as we got closer to the election.
No. What do they do. They behave like a bunch of spoilt kids by marrying a policy position 2 years ahead of time. They have no choice now but to walk into the next election with what may be a stale hand of cards.
This is not the way to play politics and its for this reason we should consider them to be a bunch of losers.
No one knows how it will turn out in terms of electorate response two years from now. However, they haven’t looked at the other side. The conservatives think this policy change will not lose them the election, which of course can be wrong. However they are also players in the game as well and that view alone needs ot be quietly respected. Therefore why lock youself in to a position because Combet and his cohorts support for their own reasons. The ACTU is not the Labor party, although you wouldn’t believe it at the moment.
I just think labor plays a silly hand of poker. They have left their flanks totally open on this one.
“In fact it looks like they would like to see it fail rather than succeed.”
Well yes. And the sky is blue and Madonna can’t act.
But yes the point you were on the verge of making joe is a good one. Labor should do more than go negative, they should propose an alternative.
Howard and Costello never tire of pointing out how well Australia is travelling economically so clearly what we’ve got now is working well.
But there’s a bunch of shit coming down the pipeline from skills shortages and aging workforces to rising healthcare costs and an almost inexhaustible supply of cheap labour that can assemble high value-added goods on our doorstep.
Which basically leaves Australia’s main assets as world-class productive mineral resources and agribiz sectors, a cunning, creative, ingenious, sexy but lazy populace, very nice hospitals and unis and as a pretty, clean and green, well serviced and economically and politically stable and safe enormous backyard.
It’s time for a 21st century Accord that takes all this into account- and one where the old vested interest farts and overshaven young apparachiks in both the union and big business sectors should be sidelined as observers.
Nabs, CS
In fact, CS, the more I think of Labor’s position and the policy position they have placed themselves the less respect I have for them as players in the political game.
As I see it there is even more danger for Labor holding on to “sweep away” changes at the next elections than they can possibly imagine- even in a recession (more so in fact).
if there is a recssion the conservatives could claim several things:
1 the recession was overseas made and not of their doing (China and the US falling over a hill) which the elecorate could easily buy into.
2. The conservatives could then claim that dreg. has made the jobs market more flexible. Although unemployment has been rising it has risen slower than the past. They could also claim that once the recession was out of the way jobs would appear a lot faster. This could be wasily packaged in a plausible manner.
3. The labor party is then attacked for following a policy that will only create unemployment and make it harder to create new jobs as we get out. Labor is made to look like the stooge party of Combet and his buddies.
Taking into account the possibility that the recession ccan be blamed on the Chinese and the US, not althogther impossible, where does this leave Labor?
Nabs
I have been back now for a few years and I would consider this place to be unbeatable in almost all respects. In fact it is not just the lucky country it is the luck country making its own luck. It’s efficient in every respect, people work hard and the place is getting richer by the second.
Its businesses are world class, which means it workers are second to none. Health and education are world class (if not the best. Most of all the place is smart and it works smart.
Most importantly, the workers have bought into prosperity when you consider it has the largest stock ownership in the world- as high if not higher than the US.
Flexible labor laws may even been seen to enhance this. I wouldn’t be betting a single hand with a policy locked 2 years from now.
That trick never works.
Bill, it’s the excuse we had to have.
Homer, “Will he replicate Chifley or Menzies?”
Chifley turned the Senate into a proportional voting system to try and protect his majority there. Will Howard put the Senate back to party-based first past the post to protect his majority?
Darryl, I have been too rushed/lazy to think about the polls properly, and that comment you refer to was an off the top of the head throwaway
First, at the last election, Nielsen got closest on the actual 2pp and Morgan got the closest on the primary, while Newspoll came down the middle: it was closer than Morgan on the 2pp, and closer than Nielsen on the primary. Thus, Newspoll’s longstanding reputation as the most reliable poll has basically continued, despite Nielsen lucking out by getting closest on the 2pp at the election.
With Nielsen‚Äôs primary election error in mind, its subsequently still persistently higher (than Newspoll) Coalition primary has always looked suss. On this occasion, however, at 37 points it has finally gone below Newspoll (with 39) on the Coalition primary. I suspect a thorough check would show that this is the first time for at least a couple of years that Nielsen has had the Coalition primary below Newspoll (only a fortnight ago, Nielsen had the LNP primary at 43 cw Newspoll’s 37). Thus, my guess is that this is a long awaited correction, and an overshoot.
Joe, I can’t get into the NZ situation as I haven’t studied it, but as far as I’m concerned you are miles off beam on (1) the ‘dereg’ line - we have been over this a hundred times, and I don’t know why you persist with it: this is a mega-reg package; and (2) far from sitting on the fence, I think the ALP needs a bigger rocket up it to make it protest still more strongly about these changes: if it doesn’t do that, for one, it would lose my vote, for certain. The ACTU is leading the way, and Combet is the most capable Labor/labour leader in the land, for mine. It’s not a matter of wanting to “see it fail”. It is a vile and pernicious class-biased package that will be opposed until it’s repealed, end of story, full stop.
That said, Nabs is right. By the election, the ALP will need a forward policy for after it rips this disgusting disgrace up, and there is also the problem with the senate, even if the Howardians are finally put away in the lower house.
chifley lost in 49 because of Banbk nationalisation.
he couldn’t let it go after being on a royal commision.
I see this issue as similar for howard.
In both cases neither had the intellectual wherewithall to see theit ‘pet’ project was wrong.
This isn’t even deregulation of the labour market!
Joe the ‘rights’ mistake is in seeing IR as purely an economic issue. Economics doesn’t feed and clothe families. China for example has a booming economy, yet World Vision is seeking sponsors for Chinese children to give them a chance at life. At the moment Australia’s poverty is relatively hidden, unless you live somewhere like Alice Springs and see the third world conditions some people live in up here.
But back to the topic - it’s not all about the economy, it’s about people too and the economy doesn’t vote. No one cares is the economy is going well if they can’t pay their mortgage. In fact they’d be asking why. We got through the ‘Asian Tiger’ collapse pretty much unscathed. People aren’t going to believe that a recession is beyond the Government’s ability to control. The buck will stop with them, and so it should.
job insecurity, McMansions and large mortgages are a deadly combination
Quite right, Mindy - look at what happened to Keating when he was talking up the economy in the early 90s. Howard with his line about “five minutes of economic sunshine” basically said - who gives a fuck if the numbers are beautiful if you’re not feeling financially secure!
The ALPs ‘blue collar base is back-you can put your money on it. They have had a big ‘heads up’ lately (thank you Howard and Kevvie)and the cartoons doing the rounds should put the fear of God (the electors) into the heads of a few backkbenchers holding marginal liberal seats! But the ALP will not ’surf’ to the next election on the back of the IR laws alone. Howard and his backers are implementing one of the greatest pieces of social engineeering this country has ever seen-I include here the Wefare to Work, and the Contractors legislation which will be coming down early next year. It makes Chifley’s Bank nationalisation and Whitlam’s program look like tinkering with marginal tax rates.
It is in fact, an employment and incomes policy by any other name, as well as an attempt to ‘unpick’ the social and economic base of Australian social democracy. The ALP should bell the cat, and demand the government come clean. Among other things, government poliices are attempting a preemptive strike against wages inflation, likely to break out in a few industries that are feeling the effects of a booming export market (rocks and crops), where there are well heeled backers of the government (BCA and the AMMA) in the front line, experiencing skill shortages brought about by their own inanition
The mortgage belt will feel the effects sooner than people think. It won’t be a cut in wages-it will be the self imposed increase in hours as a result of all that nagging uncertainty. We will see whether they will be frozen with fear about the future, or angry enough to move on the government. Expect a lot more talking up of the ‘long war on terror’ next year.
Howard has indeed exposed himself, particularly to the socially conservative ‘battlers’ he pretends to represent, but while the ALP does nothing much more than squeal ‘Vote for us so we can repeal the IR laws’, without explaining what this social reengineering is desigend to accomplish, and having a better proposal to deal with it all, they don’t deserve to win the next election. Unfortunately, ordinary people deserve better than this shabby mix of self serving neo liberalism and half backed neo conservative ‘faith based’ poppy cock.
Mindy:
Economics is the study of allocating scarce resources to satisfy almost unlimited wants. If you want to ignore economics then close up the job market not in a half baked way like the we have done. Do it properly like the French and Germans. Then when you reach 11-12% unemployment keep repeating to yourself, “we are not going the Anglo-Saxon route”.
Markets are people buying and selling goods and services. Labor is one of these service components.
When you raise the cost of a service will find there will be less demand for it. That’s called unemployment. Unemployement happens when you add regulations this proscess. Regaulations add to the cost of labor. Lower thse costs and you end up with abroadening job market.
You ignore markets at your peril.
I’m not suggesting ignoring markets Joe, but I am suggesting that the Coalition ignore the needs of the populace at their peril. There needs to be a balance between them and I think the current IR legislation swings the pendulum too far towards the market.
Economics is the study of allocating scarce resources to satisfy almost unlimited wants.
Very funny Joe. We have massive oversupply not scarcity in most goods (see also, China). Time to update your definition from the 19th century.
If you want to ignore economics then close up the job market not in a half baked way like the we have done. Do it properly like the French and Germans. Then when you reach 11-12% unemployment keep repeating to yourself, “we are not going the Anglo-Saxon route”.
Out of date here too buddy. Following are the figures on the percentage of working-age people who have jobs (latest OECD, 2003), followed by the level of employment (regulation) protection in brackets (also the latest OECD, 2003). Australia: percentage employed 69.5 (level of job protection, pre-NoChoice 1.5); Switzerland: 77.4 (1.6); Netherlands: 73.1 (2.3); Norway: 75.6 (2.6); Sweden: 73.5 (2.6); Denmark: 76 (2.9). If you want to reduce unemployment, just keep repeating to yourself “we are going to follow the northern European route”.
When you raise the cost of a service will find there will be less demand for it. That’s called unemployment.
OK, so how do you explain the fact that the over the last 100 years, the rise of women’s wages toward equality with men has been accompanied by a parallel increase in their participation rate. By your logic, the demand for women workers should have been greatest when they earned the least. Yes, the demand/supply curves don’t cross in this case, they rise in tandem. Complex isn’t it? Yes, labour markets are.
Unemployement happens when you add regulations this proscess.
Explain Denmark having 6.5 per cent more employed than Australia and also nearly double the level of job regulation? And, well, you should be opposed to the NoChoice package Joe, cos if it does one thing for certain it will be increasing regulation.
As a non-economist, I just had a thought - why should it be the case that more people would be employed if the price of their labour was cheaper? Doesn’t that presuppose that if they’re cheaper to employ, then more of their labour will be bought? If the demand for their labour was the same and the amount/quality of the items they produce is the same, then why would more people be employed?
Or is it the case that there is a large demand for the items these people produce and that the level of their wages and/or the efficiency with which they produce them is a barrier to the creation of more of the items?
Scurrilously, is the idea that if people are paid less, then the quality/efficiency of the work will decrease, so there will be a demand for more people to be employed?
Or is it some combination of these things or something altogether different?