|Annoyed of Blundstone's Vaile of secrecy|
Some of us don't like the concept of big government controlling our lives and
taking our money. Some of us think that we would be better off with a smaller,
less powerful government, and taking on more responsibility ourselves. That's
why many of us choose to vote for a political party (or at least a coalition)
who has 'small government' as one if it's principles.
Alas, the time of principles in politics seems to be long past. We have a
conservative ('small government') party in power, growing the size of
government every year, while the opposition continually screams for bigger
government. And every now and then one gets an insight into the the real
mindset of supposedly 'small government' politicians.
Your ABC reports that:
Acting Prime Minister Mark Vaile has criticized Tasmanian footwear manufacturer
Blundstone for failing to alert the Government ahead of its decision to
relocate to Asia.
Why would a private company have a greater obligation to tell the
government of its plans than the workers themselves? What moral,
legal or pragmatic principle would make a company obliged to tell the
government that it was about to lay off the workers before telling the
people who are actually about to lose their jobs?
After all, it will be the workers who will be doing some serious household
budgeting while seeking gainful employment elsewhere.
Why does Mark Vaile think that they should have told him first? Because
he could have prepared a position on it. He could have put some spin on it
and not be caught unawares. Because ultimately he thinks that his right to
political spin overrides any rights that people have to know about the future
of their own jobs. After all, they are only the proletariat. He is the government.
You don't have to look very far to find crypto-socialism in the ranks of the