So, who's to blame? (letter)by Wally EvesNews Weekly
, February 4, 2006
There's an old saying, "To have good government, there has to be good opposition" - something Australia currently lacks.
Deep contention now runs throughout the land over John Howard's new workplace relations laws for which Howard is copping full blame. But does the blame lie entirely with him?
The labour movement, since the early postwar years, has let itself become influenced by socialist/communist philosophies instead of sticking to the traditional basic and noble ideals for which it was created - the welfare of ordinary working men and their families.
Hand in glove with that, the likes of fire-eaters Lance Sharkey, Laurie Carmichael, John Halfpenny and company relentlessly tried stirring up industrial troubles to force their radical philosophies onto the Labor Party via the trade unions.
Despite Labor wins at the federal level during the postwar period, the party seemed to remain unaware, either blissfully or deliberately, that Australians wanted no part of those lifestyles. That clear-cut message continued to go unheeded until the party eventually reached virtual self-destruction.
All those industrial and political chickens have finally come home to roost, and Australians now have no federal opposition to curb whatever liberties, outrageous or otherwise, that the Liberal Party might take.
Labor left the gate open, so Howard naturally walked through. How very sad.
That Howard did so is one thing, but for him to cop full blame for the new workplace relations laws, however contentious they might be, is a misplaced charge.
Blame rests more on socialist-tainted Labor governments, for so long unable to see the writing on the wall. And we are all now putting up with the consequences.
As I said, good government is not possible without good opposition.Wally Eves,