My letter was published today in the AFR.
In "Vehement defence of populism" (Letters, July 6), David Havyatt points to a growing inequality amongst voters tired of waiting for trickle-down benefits and suggests business should reject neoliberal rhetoric if it wants to assist in much-needed reform to Australian politics.
Populism is being fuelled by politicians watering down their "social demand" responsibilities to provide basic services and employment opportunities as existed in the past during less prosperous but more stable times. The risk is if we continue down this track, we will see a return to simplistic protectionism solutions that are gathering pace abroad.
Unless governments, in consultation with business, provide a much-needed boost to confidence with an industry-by-industry plan supported by policy measures, the angst against incumbent political parties is set to continue. Trade agreements, for instance, can enhance national outcomes, so long as any fallout from misplaced workers is matched with funded retraining opportunities. Otherwise you risk undermining confidence to the extent the benefits may fail to materialise.
But, to have a comprehensive industry policy across all major industries will require a bipartisan political approach, as suggested recently by former Reserve Bank governor Warwick McKibbin. There is nothing innovative or exciting about losing one's livelihood or having to accept substantially lower working conditions or services whilst observing a growing level of inequality.
In "Vehement defence of populism" (Letters, July 6), David Havyatt points to a growing inequality amongst voters tired of waiting for trickle-down benefits and suggests business should reject neoliberal rhetoric if it wants to assist in much-needed reform to Australian politics.
Populism is being fuelled by politicians watering down their "social demand" responsibilities to provide basic services and employment opportunities as existed in the past during less prosperous but more stable times. The risk is if we continue down this track, we will see a return to simplistic protectionism solutions that are gathering pace abroad.
Unless governments, in consultation with business, provide a much-needed boost to confidence with an industry-by-industry plan supported by policy measures, the angst against incumbent political parties is set to continue. Trade agreements, for instance, can enhance national outcomes, so long as any fallout from misplaced workers is matched with funded retraining opportunities. Otherwise you risk undermining confidence to the extent the benefits may fail to materialise.
But, to have a comprehensive industry policy across all major industries will require a bipartisan political approach, as suggested recently by former Reserve Bank governor Warwick McKibbin. There is nothing innovative or exciting about losing one's livelihood or having to accept substantially lower working conditions or services whilst observing a growing level of inequality.
4 comments:
Hi Lindsay,
I accessed the link in order to read your letter only to find it's behind a paywall available to paid subscribers.
All the best
Hi Susan -tapping on the far right hand side of your screen or the article should eliminate the subscription caption or at least allow you to read it. But in any event if that doesn't work here it is.
Headline -There is nothing innovative or exciting about losing one’s livelihood. underneath a picture.
Heading - Beware simplistic protectionism
In "Vehement defence of populism" (Letters, July 6), David Havyatt points to a growing inequality amongst voters tired of waiting for trickle-down benefits and suggests business should reject neoliberal rhetoric if it wants to assist in much-needed reform to Australian politics.
Populism is being fuelled by politicians watering down their "social demand" responsibilities to provide basic services and employment opportunities as existed in the past during less prosperous but more stable times. The risk is if we continue down this track, we will see a return to simplistic protectionism solutions that are gathering pace abroad.
Unless governments, in consultation with business, provide a much-needed boost to confidence with an industry-by-industry plan supported by policy measures, the angst against incumbent political parties is set to continue. Trade agreements, for instance, can enhance national outcomes, so long as any fallout from misplaced workers is matched with funded retraining opportunities. Otherwise you risk undermining confidence to the extent the benefits may fail to materialise.
But, to have a comprehensive industry policy across all major industries will require a bipartisan political approach, as suggested recently by former Reserve Bank governor Warwick McKibbin. There is nothing innovative or exciting about losing one's livelihood or having to accept substantially lower working conditions or services whilst observing a growing level of inequality.
Lindsay Byrnes
Read more: http://www.afr.com/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/letters-democracy-and-globalisation-20160707-gq0msy#ixzz4DpXsOV6f
Hi Lindsay,
Despite being late to return (apologies) I enjoyed reading your interesting and well thought out letter addressing inequality. While I agree with you that governments and businesses need to do more to restore people’s confidence I wonder if they will find the will and inclination to do so. I don’t know much about the political or financial circumstances being faced in Australia, but if it’s anything like the rest of the world I think what we see happening in the post-industrial West is a general sense of ennui that those in positions of power and influence have much interest in the average person.
Beginning around the end of the 19th century, and accelerating over the decades that followed, the market seeped into the domestic sphere with a steady stream of ‘convenience’ products and ‘labor-saving’ devices - many of which were neither convenient nor labor-saving. Nevertheless, the massive marketing programs that backed them up made them highly fashionable, especially in the newly prosperous middle classes that emerged as the 20th century.
Now that we’ve arrived at the end of that cycle what we’re seeing expressed is people’s rebellion against a deprivation of meaning in their lives. What might help too is a return to non-market economies where collective benefit is valued over individual profit. Wouldn't that be nice?
I won’t hold my breath. :)
All the best
Hi Susan,
It does seem governments and certainly some businesses do need to do more to restore people’s confidence as otherwise and we will continue to see the trend in growth to independent political candidates with narrow specific agenda‘s and splinter parties gaining traction. The will to power it seems to me always reverts to a question of survival, so that I think self-preservation too often take precedence in every age over goodness. But there are also some notable exceptions which will always give reason to raise ones hopes.
Best wishes
Post a Comment