Give us this day, our daily wedge...

So the war drums are beating again in the Liberal heartland, much to Tony Abbots chagrin – the economic “drys” have restarted the individual workplace agreement / deregulation / productivity debate. Abbot is struggling to avoid handing Labour a campaigning point on which it has traditionally been stronger, and which helped win it the 2007 election.

This may present Labour with a natural wedge to be used on Abbot’s battlers, those middle Australians who are drawn to his position on asylum seekers and climate change. The underlying antipathy of the battlers toward onshore processing and a carbon tax is the perception that spending on such issues reduces the amount of revenue available to be spent on everyday Australians. Basically, the battlers have a canny ability to perceive whether or not macro policies will provide them with any personal financial benefit and, if it ain’t so, they are probably fairly unlikely to support it.

Enter productivity gains. One of the arguments in restoring Australia’s levels of productivity is further deregulation of the workforce, which in the current Australian context refers to the re-introduction of individual workplace agreements. While the inclusion of a “no-disadvantage clause” in these agreements may or may not address potential unfairness, it remains clear that the underlying reason for employers to support AWA type arrangements is that is provides them with the upper hand – an employer, with access to legal, HR and managerial expertise, is always likely to be in a stronger bargaining position than an individual worker. It follows that one way of improving the profitability of a business is to pay your labour force less, so it’s no wonder that some employer groups are supporting to re-institution of AWAs.

The productivity argument is that sectors like manufacturing or heavy industry are increasingly untenable in Australia due to the “inflexibility” of our labour market arrangements and that our productivity in these sectors is declining relative to the rest of the world. Accordingly, one way to increase the productivity of these sectors is to introduce “flexibility” into the workplace, which is really another way of saying “lets provide ourselves with the opportunity to pay workers less, so that we can remain competitive with the Chinese”.

So here’s a perfect labour wedge – the Liberals can be shown to be seeking to reduce the incomes of “battler” Australians, in order to provide the “big end of town” with fatter paychecks. And, to boot, you can chuck in an xenophobic element as well, by suggesting that working Australians can only remain in employment in these sectors if they are paid as much as a Chinese factory worker somewhere in Guangdong. Perfect!!

Cynicism aside, my problem is that productivity gains seem to be inextricably linked to reducing ordinary Australian’s share of our nation’s wealth – that is, the assertion is that our international competitiveness is dependent upon reducing worker’s rights. Obviously, this doesn’t appeal to my lefty ideological programming. Unfortunately, aside from introducing subsidies or tariff structures, is there actually any way of bolstering these sectors and making them competitive against Chinese and Indian manufacturing and heavy industry? Perhaps, rationally, it may actually be preferable to let these industries go and transition to an economy based on resource exploitation and service provision (which is probably how things are heading naturally anyway).

But of course, such a transition is anathema to the Labour heartland, as evidenced by Doug Cameron’s viscerally appealing “I don’t want us to be country who makes nothing”, or Keating’s banana republic quote. And so we’re back to square one.

Anyhoo, wouldn’t it be just too funny if Abbot’s natural tendency to engage in populist politics not only forces him to bend on this workplace flexibility argument but actually pushes him toward a protectionist stance to ensure the continued support of “the battlers”. Wouldn’t that be hilarious: a party supposedly committed to free market economics but dependent on the support of an inherently self-interested heartland, forced to support direct government intervention to prop up ailing sectors. From the sublime to the ridiculous, and back again…

Is anyone else obsessed, compelled, drawn beyond their will to read Miranda Devine?

I know I shouldn’t do it but, like Bill Hicks watching Cops, I’m compelled, obsessed, drawn beyond my will to read Miranda Devine’s articles.

Its sick. I’m sick, I know, I have a problem, but I just….can’t….help myself.

I’ve had this problem for many years now, and I know that it’s affecting my loved ones, my workmates, and any other poor bastard who is forced to interact with me while I’m under the influence of her unrelenting irrationality.

But I just….can’t….help myself. Its disgusting. I keep stashes of her diatribes in my sock drawer, in a secret compartment in my desk, I retire furtively to the bathroom (or any room with a locked door) and I imbibe, like a sick, sad junky, the torrents of bile that she lets fly on a bi-weekly basis.

Why? I’m not sure what it is about her that fascinates me. I think it might have something to do with the fact that she is female. I can’t explain why but something about right wing females hits that attraction repulsion button and…bingo, I’m, hooked.  And I don’t think I’m alone – maybe every man adores a fascist. In the same way that American liberals seem to revile Anne Coulson with a vociferousness far in excess of that reserved for Glen Beck, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and their ilk, I have the feeling that Miranda seems to have a place high in the hate stakes of most “lefties”.

Maybe it’s a fascination with how someone can think and write with such a refined sense of irrationality and bloody mindedness. As it’s been said that arguing with someone like Alan Jones is like arguing with a child, its often just not possible to meet Miranda head on and debate her arguments. While someone like Janet Albrechtsen tends to make points which are backed by (admittedly sometimes spurious) facts, Miranda has a unique ability to locate half truths, unsubstantiated assertions and the like and somehow weave them into a sickening, yet fascinating diatribe which bears no resemblance, whatsoever, to the real world.

But actually, I think her real appeal is the fact that in her writing she manages to create a weltanschauung which is diametrically opposed to everything I have grown up believing and perceive to be worthwhile. According to Miranda, everything from renewable energy to Radike Samo to asylum seekers to primary school education to Christianity to the Victorian bushfires to Penny Wong’s baby are all somehow related to the insidious work of lefty pinko elites. I think I’m so attracted to this because it provides me with such an easy “other” to define myself against, a ridiculously simplified version of reality which I can nevertheless revile and thus cheaply acquire a sense of political identity.

Which is really just the same old story as far as political debate in Australia goes. The Culture Wars have this horrid ability to turn intelligent, rational analysts into the equivalent of chanting footy fans baying for the blood of the enemy. All considered analysis of any issue is fair game in service of fighting this greater war; you like wind farms? Well, seeing as you and I are on different sides of the fence I, by default, must then hate wind farms. You believe that children should be taught not only about the positive aspects of the white settlement of Australia but also about the way indigenous Australians were actually treated? Well seeing as you and are in different camps, I’ll accuse you of wearing a black armband and buy myself a ticket to see Keith Windschuttle employ every bombastic weapon in his arsenal of hyperbole at a symposium on re-writing Australian history.

On and on it goes, with nary an end in sight. And I guess I’m just another one of them slinging mud back and forth over the ramparts.  

Or maybe I just have a thing for right wing North shore Mums with 4WDS and an unrelenting sense of outrage. How kinky.

Why my wife is a better person than me

My wife is a better sort of person than me, which is probably why I like her.   Last night she came home from attending a meeting of unions, social workers, nurses, priests, not-for profits, charities and all other manner of people who work to help the disadvantaged of Sydney. The Sydney Alliance, according to its website, “brings together diverse community organisations, unions and religious organisations to advance the common good and achieve a fair, just and sustainable city.”

So my wife came home full of enthusiasm for the sense of community that was built at this meeting, and talked about the young Lebanese boy who spoke about a world where he and his mates could get together and hang out, without being hassled by cops. I was prepping some veggies for dinner at the time and so was a little distracted - she quite rightly stopped and said ”what’s that look on your face supposed to mean?”

What indeed? A whole range of preconceptions was running through my head. “Yeah well there’s probably a reason the cops hassle him and his mates, this kind of thing doesn’t just come out of nowhere.” Or “well, honestly, if I saw a bunch of pumped up, yahooing young blokes coming down the street toward me, I’d probably cross to the other side of the road.” (Shit, I sound like an Alan Jones caller).

Anyway, the animated discussion that followed basically boiled down to me taking the “personal responsibility” line, versus she on the “community engagement and positive action” argument. You know how that one goes and I’m not going to repeat it here.  But what struck me most about the discussion was the underlying sense of forgiveness, openness and, let’s be blunt, love that seems to be the motivation of the people who take part in things like the Sydney Alliance. While I ranted about how “I don’t care how disadvantaged you have been, once you pick up a weapon and you hurt me, or anyone I care about, I will try to end you”, my wife insisted that the only true way to make things better, to stop the kinds of things I was talking about, was to engage and build. Basically, to forgive.  She repeated the story told at the Alliance meeting of a lady who had been stabbed in the eye while filling up her car at a petrol station, and who had talked about how she had come to forgive her attackers. I shook my head incredulously – I would never do that. My instinct would be to pursue anyone who did that to me, through whatever means were open to me, and seek to ruin them. Eye for an eye, literally.

The Sydney Alliance consists of all sorts, including members of a whole range of Christian denominations.  But, there were also a massive number of non-Christians as well, including representatives from Muslim faiths, unions, and my wife herself, who has grown up in an atheist/agnostic household.  It struck me that it is people like this who are the real Christians, the ones who are actually working through what Jesus taught. It’s such a juxtaposition from the hatred, exclusion and judgemental attitude of most politicised Christians, or the “religious right” as they have come to be called.

Anyway, all that this made me realise was that I am not a Christian, nor a particularly “progressive” member of society. I should probably hand in my theoretical “lefty” membership card. I have never forgiven those who wronged me, and I’ll never forget. I don’t think I really can let go of my anger enough to actually embrace that particular ideology. But I admire those who can. I just hope that there are more people like my wife than me out there, otherwise we’re all fucked.