More to come on Peters Bill Ralston lets slip that the campaign to eliminate Winston Peters has more ammunition:
“The bad news for Peters is that the allegations against him will not go away, in fact there will be more over the coming months.”
Ralston implies that only, “deranged paranoid conspiracy theorists” would be “willing to believe that a pliant media and big business is out to destroy” Peters. Well, as someone who never doubted that Lee Harvey Oswald acted single-handedly, I have to say that it is increasingly looking like a concerted effort to get Peters out of the way. I see that I’m not the only one coming to that conclusion.
Now, let’s see, who would have the most to gain from not having to deal with Peters at the end of the year?
Moving right along Finlay Macdonald sums up the typical bar room political trainspotters’ reaction to recent events: “media mud fight, Winston up to his old tricks, bloody politicians… what about Robbie Deans then?”
Cogently, he argues that;
“Parliamentary reporting has so blurred the line between editorial hypothesis and mundane truth that it creates its own version of the so-called “observer effect”: in the act of commentating upon an event, the event itself is changed.”
Macdonald also reiterates the point made here that, as they hound Peters in the corridors of power, the media are reinforcing exactly the image that Peters wants to project.
Doin’ it for themselves Matt McCarten warns that the working poor will not be so passive for a new National government, should the Nats win. He detects a growing determination amongst the low paid to combine and push for better pay and conditions, citing a number of instances in the past week alone.
In each case the workers were taking action without any outside help — giving the lie to the hoary old employer propaganda about “union interference” I might add in passing. McCarten concludes:
“I see more of this every day and feel – probably for the first time since the 1980s – workers are not prepared to roll over at their employer’s whim as they did in the past.”
National has released its industrial relations policy that indicates it wishes to roll back workers’ rights. My advice to John Key is that he should tread carefully. It may unleash something it may regret.”
Tags: Matt McCarten, Winston Peters
Jafapete's Weblog 
August 3, 2008 at 12:17 pm |
McCarten is only partly right in that there is currently very low unemployment so lower paid workers have substantially more leverage with their employers than they do in a high unemployment situation. I don’t think it has much to do with unionisation or some sort of worker’s uprising (which strikes me a wishful thinking on McCarten’s part).
MacDoc, Good points. You forgot the “push factor” — inflation. This impacts bites the low paid first and hardest. And they are exposed to actual prices, not just what Statistics NZ decide should go in the basket.
August 3, 2008 at 2:11 pm |
JP: I agree with you that inflation is indeed the major driver behind current wage claims. Inflation in a recessionary environment is a disaster for low wage workers as their bargaining power is reduced at the very time that they need it the most. If unemployment starts to rise appreciably (it is still very low at the moment), I think our “working poor”, as you put it, will be in for some unpleasant times. This will happen no matter who is in power in November.
I suspect that, if Labour remain in power, the pain of low-wage workers will be less severe but more prolonged. With the Nats it will be more painful, but shorter. Lovely choice.