Here's today's effort here.
Paul "waxes" long and hard about the poor dispossessed Kelly Hoare who got rolled for her safe seat by Combet, Sheehan sternly noting how somewhat had leaked a drunken come on to a security guard to the press. Then only later in the article does he mention how Hoare had benefited greatly from the party system because she's effectively inherited the seat from the previous member, her father. Alas she was a non performer and she went. For a man whose almost fanatically pro-work choices I find it odd that Sheehan demands in job protection for her.
I will stand by for Sheehan's accounts of how Liberal staffers got safe seats in previous elections.
Then we have this;
As for Work Choices, Combet was back in the thick of the action over the past year with an ACTU-funded, national TV scare campaign of fearmongering, distortion and spin-doctoring. He was rewarded with Hoare's seat.
In the real world, Work Choices does need work. This reality needs to be addressed by the Government in the final weeks of the campaign. (What on earth was Howard thinking when he entrusted carriage of this legislation and its message to Kevin "The Undertaker" Andrews?) But Work Choices also means work creation, because the previous laws were too rigidly stacked against employers, especially in small business. There is a middle way.
In the real world Work Choices works does it?
Let's see ... if it worked why the Fairness test? If it worked why wasn't the government able to refute every single one of the ads put out by the unions? If it worked why does the government not release all the stats on Work Choices implementation? Why does the government rely on dated stats to prove its case? If it works why are only 5% of workers on AWAs with the bulk of those low or semi skilled workers, or part time women whose take home pay has been greatly reduced?Why don't you fuck off to Liberal HQ with 10 gallons of Magic Water Sheehan and stop polluting the landscape with your partisan bullshit dressed up as Journalism?
UPDATE: Another point. If Work Choices is so grand and so productive for the Australian economy and Australians - as long as they are willing to take effective paycuts to enable their battler unemployed mates into the workforce apparently, why didn't Sheehan's good mates in the Liberal party take it to the Australian people in the 2004 election?