Tell you what, a bit of inflation makes a nice change to the shit we had to deal with in the early-mid 90s when we were trying to enter the job market.

While they’re certainly illustrative of the duplicity associated with the anti-worker movement, there’s no justification for associating this particular example with the Liberal Party.

Ken Phillips’ article (comment 9) is actually pushing a different line. D’Cruz proposal was that the Liberals pretend to be worker friendly, while Phillips’ article slammed the Liberals as incompetent. Phillips’ article seems to be a pretty blatant attempt at sucking up to the new ruling power. Other parts of the anti-worker apparatus tried that too.

Yeah, CK, but recently a few people in these parts were cheerfully suggesting that Rudd should tear up the tax cut promises he had made, at least in regard to high-income earners.

And you know, I’m a little surprised that union views seem to carry so little weight with you.

“Victorian Trades Hall Council secretary Brian Boyd said unions would lobby the entire federal Labor caucus in a bid to ensure Work Choices was scrapped by the end of next year. … “We know these things take time, but I don’t think it needs to take two years. Our view is that the dismantling of Work Choices should be accelerated through 2008 and not go beyond 2008.”"
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22947004-601,00.html

a) To NOT behave as Rudd expects.

Would that include not behaving like porkchops? Hang on…

Oh for goodness sake. It was the election platform, you goose. Fulfilling promises on which they were voted into office, anyone?

At least we’re spared the slimy reptilian undertakings of ‘core’ and ‘non-core’ promises (apologies to snakes and lizards - I know you’re not really slimy).

“Business” knows the deal. Tough negotiations will occur. Business will cope. After all, it’s what Business does every day: Contract Management 101.

And putting a show-pony like Julie Bishop in charge of shadow IR…Well, she’s pretty good at swanning around Subiaco.

Which is to say she’s a younger, dumber, yet even shallower version of Dame Bronwyn of Mosman.

And really, anyone who considers absolute creeps like Ross Lightfoot and Peter Nattrass as serious romantic propositions (or judicious political career moves - whatever) is demonstrating a few damning flaws in judgment IMO.

I think Jules would be better placed as a house-mistress at Perth PLC.

And, as usual, Possum has it absolutely correct.

The strategy is wildly counter-intuitive to Coalition strategy of the last decade.

Or any decade past or future. Thank you, Liberal Party stooges, for my trip to WTFistan. Do they not realise wage arbitration is dead? “Wage breakouts” are the bosses’ problems in this age of flexibility.
I had no idea the enemy were *quite* so out of touch. Counter-intuitive is to say let’s crap our dacks about the Victorian ETU and NSW AMWU, but not mention unionism.

4. Coalition Countervailing Strategic Objectives 2008
a) To NOT behave as Rudd expects.

ORLY? There’s a strategy for the ages.
Oh, and I should add, bring it on in NSW. State politics has been so boring.

The previous comments about current AWAs running out, legal complications etc are all correct.

It also paves the way to be elected for a second term. Anything drastic would shakes things up a bit.

Its Kevins version of relaxed and comfortable.

So while the document shows how out of ideas the Libs are, the strategy for 2010 election is sort of on the mark.

Now for the Coalition its all strategy, no policy. At least K07 had/has policies.

The documents provide a veritable shooting gallery of political naivety, and there is such a large quantity of nonsense contained in the “advice� that it’s hard to know just where to begin, let alone to stop when it comes to pointing out its plentiful inanities - it’s no wonder that some Libs leaked it to the media. It’s certainly an effective way to kill off any potential outbreak of derangement that might occur in the Liberal party should some parts of it, in their desperation, start taking this horsesh*t seriously.

The best piece of advice D’Cruz could have given the Liberal Party is to stop listening to their ever tightening incestuous circle of apparatchiks when it comes to advice in the first place - but that’s another story.

They could have put legislation through saying every existing AWA is cancelled on 1 Jan 2009, and the worker is then covered by the relevant award.

And be drowned out by the screams from business.

You couldn’t do that for (at least) two reasons:

(1) Conditions have been stripped out of awards, and if you were going to do it, you’d need to update the awards first (a horrendously complex task productive of much conflict and argy bargy that would in any case take years not months). Obviously abolishing AWAs to make some people worse off would be counter-productive.

(2) Unilaterally cancelling legally binding employment contracts is a horrible precedent.

“It reeks of one of Baldrick’s cunning little plans.”

My sentiments exactly!! And here am I thinking that Nelson’s Lot had completely lost The Plot!!! Perhaps they could entice in Time Team to search their Liberal advisers for the brain rumoured to be cunningly hidden somewhere within.

I might have doubted its authenticity, had it not born the same hallmarks as the Lindsay Affair.

Just DYING for Paul Keating’s take and Nicholson’s Animation!

Well, why was it decided that way? It didn’t have to be. They could have put legislation through saying every existing AWA is cancelled on 1 Jan 2009, and the worker is then covered by the relevant award.

Beacuse some people are already on AWAs that span more than one year. It was decided that these AWAs would be phased out as they expired.

I loved the suggestion that they support compensation paid by the government for those already disadvantaged by AWAs. THAT’s going to give them real credibility isn’t it? We allowed the workers to get screwed so the taxpayer can stump up compo.

Perhaps if they submit, they might live to fight another day, maybe after the ghost of John disappears.

These guys really are a tight little circle. One day the Liberal Party will learn that if it is to re-win office, it will need to listen to people who are outside its circle. That day looks a long way off.

Most interesting here is the fact that the advice was leaked by someone in the Liberal Party. One must ask who would do that and for what purpose

To make Brendan Nelson look like a goose? To make Jule Bishop look like a goose?

The Liberal Party really is a mess. They are hopelessly split on the Apology, industrial relations, relations with the National Party, and much else besides.

Umm, OK, so if that’s the case, remind me again why they’re delaying the full repeal of WorkChoices to 2010?

I recall some palaver about wanting to get it right, but surely that’s just an excuse. You’d think that 6 months or a year of drafting would suffice, with the complete new system in place by early 2009 at the latest.

Compare this paper from Ken Phillips for the IPA which makes a very similar argument:

http://ipa.org.au/files/59-4_PHILLIPS.pdf

[pdf]

What will happen with AWAs for individuals earning over 100K? I remember talk of retaining them

I haven’t looked this up and haven’t time just now, but I think that’s when either a common law contract is offered or when a flexibility clause kicks in if the person is covered by a certified agreement.