131 thoughts on “NSW Labor Headed For Defeat

  1. @Michael of Summerhill
    I cannot think of a faster way to cede all power to powerful vested interests (like banks and their wealthy clients) than to continue with the absolute insistence that the budget always be in surplus, they continue to keep their triple A rating no matter the economic cirumstances, whilst at the same time privatising every income generating asset of government, and minimising all government expenditure. There must be a point at which nothing will save the government from privatising itself and before that happens most who remain in political power / government will seek to profit from the destruction of public infrastructure personally. This is what we see in in the behaviour of NSW Labor.

  2. MoSH, I am familiar with the bill introduced by a Green MLC and I don’t contest that you support it. I am not sure how that is an argument that Labor merits re-election. Indeed Kaye’s own speech in the legislative council is itself an excellent argument against re-election:

    The New South Wales Government has engaged in a fire sale of assets—a fire sale of assets that was never foreseen at the previous State election. I remind the House that at the previous State election the Public Service Association [PSA], of which I and many members of this House are proud members, asked candidates to sign a public interest pledge that said job cuts equals service cuts. Item 3 of that pledge was to guarantee to protect public sector delivery of services for New South Wales. One of the most famous signatories of this pledge was none other than then Premier, Morris Iemma, who signed the Public Service Association pledge just before appearing on the stage before a crowd of about 3,500 people outside Sydney Town Hall. His signing of the pledge was welcomed by all present and was seen as a commitment over the
    ensuing four years by the Labor Government to not privatise public sector service delivery and services.

    The result of that bill? Second reading negatived on division, 20/05/2010. The vote was 3 Greens against 23 others. Now if the premier were to endorse the bill and make it part of her election platform, with a commitment that it would be not be non-cored the way the Iemma promise was, that may be a different story.

  3. Alan, many within the labour movement supported John Kaye’s proposal before and after both readings, so the debate is not over and in my opinion Labor can still restore some of its dignity by having a guarantee in place as to the future sale of public assets.

  4. MoSH, the single worst problem that Labor has is that there is such a disconnect between what many within the labour movement support and what actually happens in government. The reason for that is the extraordinary ascendancy of the Sussex St nomenklatura which in reality determines both leadership and policy.

    The problem with Labor having a guarantee in place on the future sale of public assets is that they went to the last election with that same guarantee. Labor does not just break little peripheral non-core promises like the unlamented Howard government, Labor makes an art form of choosing whatever core value is dearest to its voters and throwing it out the window.

    Even if the Kaye bill had passed, it would be no surety of Labor’s behaviour. The Labor caucus approved the current fire sale and no doubt will approve future fire sales as well.

  5. Alan, I happen to disagree for whoever is in government will need a majority vote in both houses of parliament to proceed with any future sale of State public asset. Have to go.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s