Yesh Gvul
Courage To Refuse
Shministim
Pilots
Free The Five
New Profile
Refuser Solidarity Network


Name: Antony Loewenstein
Home: Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
Comment Rules
About Me:
See my complete profile



Google
Web antonyloewenstein.blogspot.com
Sweat-Shop Productions
Sweat-Shop Productions
Sweat-Shop Productions



Blogs

Sites




Previous Posts



Powered by Blogger

 


Tuesday, January 24, 2006

One rule for us

Rupert Murdoch indicates he may turn away from Tony Blair's Labour:

"Rupert Murdoch, the head of News International, urged David Cameron last night to commit the Conservative Party to a Thatcherite tax-cutting agenda to win the next election.

"The proprietor of The Sun and The Times, whose influence is credited with helping Tony Blair and New Labour win power, hinted that he would be prepared to switch support to Mr Cameron's style of Conservatism if he adopted tax cuts."

Why did Murdoch first support Blair?

"We swung behind Labour and they didn't turn away from the Thatcher legacy. Tony Blair is on record saying he would not undo what she had done, and he has not.''

The "Thatcher legacy" - so warmly embraced by individuals like Murdoch - was exposed by John Pilger in 2003:

"Most Labour voters had endured 18 years of cuts in education, social security, disability and other benefits - yet [Gordon] Brown reversed not a single one of them, including a tax base that allows the likes of Rupert Murdoch to avoid paying tens of millions of pounds to the Treasury. Today, nothing essentially has changed. One in four Britons is still born into poverty - a poverty that has hardened under Blair and Brown and remains the chief cause of higher rates of ill health, accidents and deaths in infancy, school exclusion and low educational performance."

The Murdoch press is solidly behind the conservative Liberal party in Australia. but if the empire smells a change in the wind, their ten years of "principled" support of John Howard will vanish. Behind the populist veil, the Murdoch press is interested in being close to power and maintaining superior political access and financial largesse.

5 Comments:

Blogger Iqbal Khaldun said...

An important function of maintaining the status quo in our capitalist democracies is turning the tables around from time to time. If you can get both sides of politics into power on roughly the same platforms (ie at least as relates to the big issues anyway, like the economy, foreign policy, etc. The odd pro-gay marriage government doesn't seriously challenge this, which is not to say such developments aren't significant) it effectively neutralises the political process as a way of facilitating meaningful social change. When Kim Beazley returned to the Opposition Leader's chair, one of the first things he did was announce the Opposition's support for tax cuts for the richest Australians. In effect, he was telling the powerful, who support John Howard at present, that Labor was serious about getting back into office. Note also the never-ending love affair between Federal Labor and Liberal Governments and Kerry Packer.

Whenever people ponder Labor's chances of getting re-elected, they ought to remember that the real question is whether any party will achieve incumbency on a platform that fundamentally shifts economic and political clout away from the corporations and other privileged sectors (doctors, other high income earners, etc). If we maintain 'observer status' as our democracy continues to drift away, there is no reason to suspect that this formula will change.

Tuesday, January 24, 2006 12:13:00 pm  
Blogger Wombat said...

You are spot on Iqbal. The idea of a two party system is just a side show for the masses.

When Howard was voted into government, it wasn;t onthe strenght of his leadership, so much as the fear of Labor's seeming invicinbility at the time after Keating had defeated Hewson. I suspect that sooner or later, the same thing will happen to the Libs.

And as ususal, we will hear al the campaign promises, which we will later learn havre to be put on hold because of the fiscal irresponsibility of the last incumbent. It's entirely predictable

In Blair's case, he really has become a liability and I suspect that his entire party is tarred with the same brush. He is no lnger able to puch thorugh legislations the way he used to.

Tuesday, January 24, 2006 12:26:00 pm  
Blogger Melanie said...

Democracy isn't drifting away and the 2 party system isn't a side show for the masses. The 'masses' are centrist and both parties are vying for their vote. The 'masses' have exactly what they want.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 12:06:00 am  
Blogger Wombat said...

with all due repsetc Melanie, that could not be further from the truth. The towo parties are identical is that they serve the same masters. The make campaign pro mises and then fail to keep them.

All these guys are interested in, is staying in power. Nothing else.

Why is it that come election time, the incumbent always has a plan to redeuce taxes or come other bribe for the public? What stops them making that available in between elections?

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 2:10:00 am  
Blogger Iqbal Khaldun said...

No, you're right Melanie. One of those parties has three vowels in its name, the other only has two. Well spotted.

Thursday, January 26, 2006 10:55:00 am  

Post a Comment

<< Home