Corporate Engagement

Clinton's Appalachian appeal

Talking Points Memo | Upcountry.

Let me offer a series of overlapping explanations. First, some basic demographics. It's widely accepted that Hillary Clinton does better with older voters, less educated voters and white voters. These demographics perfectly match West Virginia -- and, more loosely, the entire Appalachian region...But there's a deeper historical explanation that we have to apply as well...

During the 18th and 19th centuries, in the middle Atlantic and particularly in the Southern states, there was a long-standing cleavage between the coastal and 'piedmont' regions on the one hand and the upcountry areas to the west on the other...These regions were settled disproportionately by Scots-Irish immigrants who pushed into the hill country to the west in part because that's where the affordable land was but also because they wanted to get away from the more stratified and inegalitarian society of the east which was built by English settlers and their African slaves. Crucially, slavery never really took root in these areas. And this is why during the Civil War, Unionism (as in support for the federal union and opposition to the treason of secession) ran strong through the Appalachian upcountry, even into Deep South states like Alabama and Mississippi.

The Appalachian region was not just anti-slavery but also anti-slave; and this heritage translates today into an objection to voting for a black man.

It's a fascinating analysis.

Gordon Brown falls behind John Major

Labour's poll rating worst since Thatcher, Guardian/ICM poll shows

Labour support is in freefall, according to a Guardian/ICM poll published today. It shows that the party's position - 14 points behind the Conservatives - is worse than at any time since May 1987, just before Margaret Thatcher won her third election by a landslide.

Public confidence in Labour's ability to govern has dropped heavily on a series of key measures. Voters are also turning their back on Gordon Brown personally: 75% of people who voted Labour in 2005 now think that Tony Blair was a better prime minister. Overall, voters also place Brown as a leader behind Thatcher and even John Major.

It must be time to go for Gordon Brown.

The spin starts here: Woolies fronts the ACCC

Crikey (my latest piece)

Woolworths Chief executive officer Michael Luscombe fronted the ACCC inquiry yesterday to talk about some of the most hated corporate practices in Australia today.

Australia's two retail giants (Coles is due to give its evidence next week) are coming under intense scrutiny for alleged anti-competitive behaviour, predatory pricing, price gouging and more. Some people, like radio host Alan Jones, go so far as to blame them for inflation.

ABC blocks comments by conspiracy theorists

Unleashed: Unanswered 9/11 questions.

More from 911oz.com:

Hi guys & thanks for the support. I spent quite a bit of time on that article, and was unsure about whether it would ultimately be knocked back by the ABC.

It looks to me now that they have made a policy decision to allow this topic within the confines of "opinion". The next step is to move it into the "news" category.

I think there is a good chance that a TV show like Lateline would pick it up. This should happen as a natural progression, but I won't hold my breath.
-------------------------------------------

Comments now at 262 - the challenge is, can we beat the article on gay marriage which has 607 comments?
--------------------------------------------

Moderator: In view of allegations that comments on this subject have become part of a campaign, no more postings on this article will be accepted. With over 500 comments, the issues have been well canvassed - Ed.

No kidding. Lie down with dogs you get fleas. Surprising thing is that the Unleashed editors didn't realise they were being used from the start.

links for 2008-05-19

• THE JACKSON WELLS REPORT: Bob Brown's $1m bribe claim sus
  (tags: media politics)

Woolworths hits PR rough patch

Woolworths is having its dirty linen aired in public this week before an ACCC enquiry and some interesting issues are coming to light:

Banal explanations:

Chief executive officer Michael Luscombe said Woolworths' prices and profits reflected its concern for customers, staff and shareholders.

Every CEO says this but what does it actually mean in practice?

Undercutting:

Mr Luscombe (Woolworths CEO) declined to answer a question on whether Woolworths would sell goods for less than their cost price in order to match competitors - the so-called "predatory pricing" that smaller retailers complain is used to price them out of the market. The question was deferred for a closed session later in the day.

Not answering is not a good look.

Anti-competitive behaviour

Woolworths executives did detail a number of methods by which they exercised pressure on rivals, including the lodgement of 22 objections over the past five years to planning applications from rival retailers. Woolworths property manager Ralph Kemmler said the company also routinely negotiated lock-out clauses with shopping centre landlords that precluded the entry of competitors over the term of a 20-year lease.

But the CEO also said Woolworths loves competition?

Price gouging:

The Southern Sydney Retailers Association discovered an average 134% price differential when it purchased a standard basket of 28 grocery items from the Fairfield and Greystanes Woolworth’s outlets. The product basket was more than twice expensive at Greystanes than Fairfield, which is located just four kilometres away, because there is a higher level of competition at one and not the other, according to SSRA president Craig Kelly.

In response Woolworths said: "Woolworths was heading towards having items at the same price nationally, with the exception of high-cost delivery areas."

Every consumer believes differential pricing happens all the time.

Higher profit margins:

Woolworths also admitted it makes higher profit margins than five years ago, but said it consistently has cheaper prices than its competitors and believes competition was a good thing.

Liberals face leadership crisis in fallout from dumb petrol price policy.

It was always going to happen. But it has happened fast and it needs to be resolved fast, or the federal liberal party will go the same way as its state counterparts. Already, there is real damage being done to the Opposition as Mark Bahnisch points out.

No-one with the slightest understanding of Australian political history would have plumped for an unpaid for billion dollar plus populist bribe in their first budget-in-reply speech as Brendan Nelson did last week. The speech was classic Nelson, a few nice lines but hopeless on the substance.

Ever since Malcolm Fraser's disgraceful budget in 1982 (which followed that other Fraser / Howard obscenity the 1977 'fist full of dollars') the trend in Australian politics has been towards more accountability and transparency in political promises.

The Australian convention now is that all promises be properly costed and paid for with tax changes or expenditure savings. Nelson has stupidly tried to turn his back on this important convention and reverse a quarter of a century of progress in accountability.

Following the outrageous spending of the Liberals under Howard in recent years, it is particularly important that the Nelson exercised is seen for what it is - a return to the economic dark ages in Australian national politics.

Malcolm Turnbull was the logical choice (after Peter Costello's withdrawal) for the Liberal leadership precisely because, whatever other faults he might have, he has economic policy credibility.

Nelson's petrol price bribe (which is also foolish on a number of other counts) has left him wide open on his most vulnerable flank to attacks from both within the Liberal Party and from the Government. Not a great tactical move.

Senator Bob Brown disingenuous on media bribe claim

The obvious question is why did Senator Brown wait 8 years to reveal that he was offered a large bribe. Brown's response:

However Senator Brown has defended his decision not to make the offer public at the time. "I didn't because it went nowhere and because in publishing an approach like that the advice I got was that I would [be] open to defamation ... because I was defaming a character who would very clearly deny that a conversation had ever taken place," he said.

There's at least 2 problems with this response. First, offering a bribe is a serious criminal offence and he should have reported to the police immediately. Secondly, as a Senator, he has the privilege of getting up in parliament and saying whatever he likes without fear of defamation action.

links for 2008-05-18

• Money Ruins Everything at John Quiggin
  Web 2.0 and the rise of the amateur
  (tags: web2.0)

Selling the federal budget enters a tougher phase

People don't have high expectations of Wayne Swan, he's no Paul Keating or Peter Costello. For many that's a relief, of course. Many commentators treated Swan's first Budget the way Johnson spoke dismissively of female preachers.

Accordingly, Swan got high marks for getting through it all. The Budget seemed to meet the Government's claims for it as 'tough but fair'.

Over the last few days, the honeymoon effect has worn off a little and media criticism of the content of Labor's first Budget in 13 years has acquired a sharper edge:

• Ross Gittins opens his piece today with: "The more closely you study last week's budget the less impressive it is." His argument is that Rudd and Swan 'wimped' it on spending cuts.
• The Government is also drawing a lot of flack over the changes to Medicare.
• Health Minister Nicola Roxon is also defending the tax on alcopops from people who think the government should go further on binge drinking as well as those who think it has gone too far.
• And then there are those, like pensioners and carers, who are disgruntled about missing out in the 'working families' Budget.
• Rudd's environmental credentials, sky high after his ratification of Kyoto, are also taking a hit because of the decision to means test the solar panel subsidy.

This is not the end of it. There are criticisms emerging across the board.

It all adds up to a lot of fronts to be fighting on. This week will be critical for longer-term perceptions of Swan's Budget.