Spain: Sabre Rattling.

Ever since the Catalonian regional government called for a referendum on the issue of secession, there have been talks in Madrid about the need for military intervention.

Yesterday, what were mainly vague, private comments, may have become more concrete and public, after an active service officer, general Juan Antonio Chicharro, speaking in a public colloquium, sketched what an observer qualifies as a juridical rationale "for a military intervention to avoid the secession". (See here, in Spanish, my translation)

General de División (equivalent to a US Army Major General) Chicharro, former commander of the Spanish Marines, made the pronouncement at the Gran Peña, a traditional club frequented by reserve officers, during a colloquium to which figures linked to academic and judicial circles were also attending.

According to the El País report, Chicharro's intervention, which fell short of calling for a coup d'etat against civilian authorities refusing to take military measures against separatists, gained relevance as he is an active member of the Army Reserve. In Spain the military jurisdiction outlaws the public expression of opinions suggesting the dereliction of the neutrality duty in relation to political matters.

Coming when the Catalonian regional government seems decided to proceed with the separation and when the federal government, headed by conservative Mariano Rajoy, has shown itself incapable of solving the economic crisis affecting Spain and is besieged with generalized accusations of corruption, Chicharro's opinions were received with approval by the public present at the colloquium, according to the El País.

The last attempt at a military putsch in Spain took place in February 1983, 32 years ago.

Update:
02-03-2013. The commotion created by general Chicharro's intervention in the Gran Peña moved the Spanish Defence Ministry, predictably, to open an investigation. PSOE and other parties manifested their condemnation to any form of extraconstitutional exit to the secession movements. General Chicharro sent a letter to El País denying his intervention in the colloquium aimed to justify a military intervention.

Mamma Mia, l'Ironia.

Or Those "Dumb", "Operetta Loving", "Conservative" Italians.

I can imagine the Italian social democratic intelligentsia trying to make sense of the results of the latest Italian elections.

----------

A little more than a year ago, media gazillionaire and conservative Italian politician Silvio Berlusconi was a pariah.

The Italian population, disgusted by an endless stream of scandals involving Berlusconi, and by the Brussels-inspired austerity German chancellor Merkel and French president Sarkozy forced him to apply, took to the streets to celebrate Berlusconi's resignation in November, 2011.

Fast forward a year and two months, during which the Italian population kept taking to the streets to protest against the austerity, enforced now by the Troika candidate, "Super" Mario Monti.

General elections were called.

On this corner, the so-called centre-left candidate to Prime Minister, the social democrat Pier Luigi Bersani, promised to continue Monti's austerity. You know, it's the responsible thing to do, that's why Brussels had to force it down the Italians' throats.

Bersani, like Monti before him, desperately wants to be seen as a "good, tough, realist economic manager, a fiscal conservative" (social democrats, like Bersani and his Democratic Party, love that label, don't they?).

On the opposite corner, "Il Cavaliere" Berlusconi, as entangled as ever in his own operetta peccadilloes, promised to reverse Monti's austerity.

Dark horse candidate Beppe Grillo, head of the Five Star Movement (5SM), also severely criticized Monti's austerity.

And, guess what, "Il Cavaliere" and his People of Freedom conservative coalition not only recovered from Berlusconi's downfall, but gained control of the Senate. Together with the anti-austerity Beppe Grillo and his virtually unknown 5SM, they could in theory form an anti-austerity coalition:

Party             Vote (%)
Democratic Party    29.5
People of Freedom   29.1
5 Star Movement     25.5
With Monti          10.5
Others               5.4
Source

If I had to guess, I'd say that the Italians really aren't too happy with the "good economic management"; so much so that faced with it, they find Berlusconi's well-known failings a price worth paying.

Although this seems obvious to me, I imagine that's just because I'm dumb.

Really smart pundits, like the BBC News' Alan Johnson, know better: it's not that Monti's "good economic management" sucks and blows, it's just Bersani who wasn't able to sell its virtues:

"Is it possible that the poor showing of the centre-left Democratic Party might lead to ructions within it?
"Its leader, Pier Luigi Bersani, ran a deeply uninspiring campaign.
"He felt he had a healthy lead in the polls and he sat on it, playing safe."

And the best thing is that I bet Bersani may actually believe that.

----------

Berlusconi's People of Freedom party includes former Fascist elements. Berlusconi himself not only has been linked to the mafia and corruption, but is also well-known for his anti-democratic, racist and anti-Semitic remarks.

Abandoned in their hour of need by the "responsible" and "realist" social democrats, the people will follow anyone promising them relief. And I don't put it past Berlusconi that he will still change his mind on austerity.

----------

Social democrats must have some deeply ingrained self-loathing issues that they need to resolve. The Italian elections, last weekend, show that.

Chronicle of a Death Foretold (III).

While the barbarians gather at the gates of Canberra, the small parties and independents are positioning themselves for the all too predictable changes in the political landscape, including a Coalition-controlled Senate, informs us Lenore Taylor, SMH's chief political correspondent.

(Just for fun, you might want to read the previous installment in this series)

Independent Senator Nick Xenophon [A]

One of those getting ready to survive Labor's upcoming shellacking appears to be independent senator Nick Xenophon, "who lost his balance of power position in mid-2011, is clearly preparing for the prospect that he will be re-elected and get it back again".

As it happens, the intrepid senator for South Australia, who has been generously featured in the media recently for his unexpected adventures in Malaysia (of all places!), "is also leading the way on changes many Coalition members want to make to industrial relations laws, introducing another private member's bill to exempt small businesses in the restaurant, catering and retail sectors with fewer than 20 full-time employees from paying penalty rates at weekends".

Don't believe Taylor? Neither did I, at first, until I found this, straight from the horse's mouth (August 14, 2012):

"Under Senator Xenophon's Fair Work Amendment (Small Business - Penalty Rates Exemption) Bill 2012, penalty rates would still be payable, but only where an employee has worked more than 38 hours in a seven day period or worked more than 10 hours each day. This exemption would only apply to businesses which employ fewer than 20 full time equivalent employees". Update: Senate Hansard transcript for August 16, 2012.

According to ACTU the changes Xenophon proposes mean "over 500,000 workers risk losing their penalty rates". As most workers employed by food outlets and in retail are already part-timers, based on a 6 hour shift:

• A fast food worker could lose over $26 on Saturdays and $53 on Sundays.
• A retail worker could lose over $26 on Saturdays. On Sundays, a permanent retail worker (full-time or part-time) could lose $105, and a casual $79.
• A hospitality worker who is permanent (full time or part-time) could lose over $25 on Saturdays and $74 on Sundays. A casual hospitality worker could lose $50 on Sundays.

----------

With or without reason, restaurant owners and retailers have long been complaining that operating costs are putting them out of business. Xenophon's bill could address reducing commercial leases, red tape, utilities, suppliers, financing and interests payments, the exchange rate, online shopping, all subjects small businesses complain endlessly.

This from a Council of Small Business of Australia press release:

"COSBOA notes that the high penalty rates are also affecting the health of business owners in large shopping centres who are working six and seven days a week due to the landlord forcing them to open and the high penalty rates and low sales making employing other people prohibitive". (Emphasis added)

So, there you have it, the solution to a problem created by landlords is to squeeze their workers.

Xenophon does not address any of this. Why not? Don't ask me, ask him.

The idea is to externalize these "small business" people's costs, so that workers bear them. And this is already the situation with restaurant workers, according to a recent Fairfax Media investigation on restaurants and diners:

Underclass of restaurant employees in Sydney grossly underpaid - Sarah Whyte and Clay Lucas - January 18, 2013
Restaurants' dirty secret revealed - Sarah Whyte, Clay Lucas - January 26, 2013
Wages of sin - January 26, 2013
Hard to swallow: restaurant staff tips taken by owners, says union - Sarah Whyte, Clay Lucas - January 29, 2013
Wages rot begins at the top - Sarah Whyte, Clay Lucas - January 27, 2013

----------

Make no mistake, after these "long-suffering" heroes get their free lunch at their workers' expense, every other "long suffering" hero will cry for their own, and Xenophon, being so understanding, will be happy to indulge. Don't miss it: coming soon to a paycheck near you.

Once you've been reduced to the most abject misery, you know who you owe that to.

----------

The Unions Australia website is designed to facilitate the process of joining a union.

Image Credits:
[A] "Independent Senator Nick Xenophon suggests if the facts change, it is fine to change your mind". File licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic licence. Wikipedia. Author: Di Bell. My use of the file does not in any way suggests its author endorses me or my use of the work.

No More Mr. No-Guy.

Or The Strange Case of Dr. Abbott and Mr. Tony.

We all make New Year resolutions: to eliminate negative habits (like smoking) or to acquire positive ones (to exercise more); that kind of things.

Federal opposition leader Tony Abbott (National/Liberal Coalition, conservative), like most of us, apparently also made his own. Being a high-profile man, famous for his physical fitness, however, Abbott's resolution couldn't be as trivial as adopting a healthier lifestyle. Nope, Abbott decided to change how voters perceive him.

Understandably, Abbott's resolution has the political commentariat and voters scratching their heads. Peter Hartcher, SMH's political and international editor, among them.

You see, overseas readers, after making a political career as a "brawler" (as political journalist Glenn Milne described him in 2010), a "Neanderthal" (in Labor MP Rob Mitchell's words, quoted by Hartcher), or as "a polarising right-winger" with a "propensity for insensitivity and controversy" (in the diplomatic views of former US Ambassador Robert McCallum, also quoted by Hartcher) Abbott decided to follow the advice people like columnist Terry Barnes have been giving him since at least 2010: "If two-toned Tony can keep his wild side in check, he would make a good PM".

So, farewell to Tony of the Tea Party; no more Dr. No. Meet Dr. Yes, the thoughtful, reasonable, civil, Tony.

And, lo and behold, lots of personal accounts of this more positive Abbott come to the surface, too. Hartcher's op-ed tells:

"A senior official of the federal Employment Department, who has since retired, recalls (...) 'I've worked closely with a lot of ministers and senior politicians. There are very few as humble and ordinary outside their working lives'.
"Not only that, he found Abbott to be an impressive minister who carried a real concern for the human consequences of policy. As employment minister, Abbott dismantled the old Commonwealth Employment Service, put its functions out to tender and created the Jobs Network. 'Once the decision was taken, Abbott turned his attention to the 10,000 people who [no longer] worked in the CES. He said, 'We can't just junk them and move on.' So the tenderers for the slices of the business were encouraged to recruit these people. He looked closely at their redundancy terms'."

Although perhaps Hartcher missed the irony in the previous story (ominous, too, if you are a commonwealth public servant), he asks: "Who is the real Tony?"

Hartcher risks an answer, too: "He's both. Abbott transmuted from responsible, caring minister to angry, barnstorming demolition man as opposition leader, and now he's moving to change back again".

----------

Perhaps. I've never met Abbott, so I couldn't tell. He seemed quite spontaneous when he admitted to Kerry O'Brien, back in 2010, that not everything he said was "gospel truth":

But, if I had to guess, I'd say that Abbott's true personality, whatever it might be, is largely irrelevant. The fact that can be ascertained is that Abbott's former ministerial colleagues have not ceased campaigning for a return to Work Choices (as readers can verify by checking Peter Reith's public op-eds at The Drum), Joe Hockey's commitment to end the already near inexistent "social net" (aka entitlements society) and Abbott's own intention to further benefit the long-suffering miners.

I hate surprises, particularly the unpleasant and predictable ones. How about you?