VoteChoices

It was great to see a crowd of an estimated 40,000 people gathering for today's Your Rights At Work rally in Sydney. Today's rally marked a decisive new phase in the campaign, with a new slogan, `Your Rights At Work: Worth Voting For'. This is a break from the ACTU's previous strategy, which was basically non-partisan, and a loud statement of intention: IR is now well and truly on the election map.

It's an approach that may be considered controversial by some, but to look at things pragmatically, this was the only approach that could be taken in the current climate. Recently, I mentioned the campaign against WorkChoices to someone who replied `But you lost! You lost the court challenge! That's all over! What else can you do?" I could only reply that we can still advocate for changes to the current system, but ultimately, the only way things could improve was in a change in government. This is clearly something the ACTU recognises, and their argument - that all who support workers' rights have a duty to vote for Labor this time around - is pretty persuasive. Will minor parties set aside their differences, both with each other and the major parties, in pursuit of this goal? It's hard to say.

This week, Bob Carr addressed the Annual General Meeting of the NSW Fabian Society. Whatever you think of Carr, he is an impressive and informed speaker, and in this case, his topic of interest was American politics. One point he made was this: that Ralph Nader was gravely remiss - even culpable - in the defeat of Al Gore in the 2000 election, in that when it became clear that the election would go right down to the wire, he should have mobilised his support base to shift their vote to Gore rather than cast a symbolic vote for him. An American friend once drove this point home to me - she voted for Nader in 2000, and, much to her horror, all of her Republican workmates thanked her for helping get Bush into office.

One of the many advantages of Australia's electoral system is that a vote for a third party is not necessarily a vote that may as well not have been cast. Still, the point is clear: voting in the 2007 election must be tactical, not symbolic. Especially after the shenanigans in the Tasmanian election and virtually every other observation I've made of the Greens in election mode, I'm not confident that they would set aside their ambitions in recognition of this fact.

I would be absolutely thrilled if all progressive parties united on this issue. I would love not to be complaining about the Greens. I largely believe in what they believe in - though we disagree on how these things may be achieved - and have fought alongside them in campaigns on all sorts of issues, but, as often occurs on our side of politics, we end up finding the enemies amongst ourselves rather than uniting to defeat the real enemy - in this case, the Howard Government.

On another topic, Greg Combet was looking very statesmanlike during his address at the SCG this morning. Are the persistent rumours that he is considering running for office as an ALP member true? On one hand I would say no, given his strength of performance and obvious passion for the WorkChoices campaign and other important causes, particularly the James Hardie case (the legislation for which was signed off by the NSW Government this week, after a long, painful battle). Then again, a decision to run could represent the apotheosis of the new phase of the WorkChoices battle - the most powerful advocate of the issue working inside the only party with the actual ability to overturn the legislation.

One thing's for sure - the 2007 election campaign has now begun, and WorkChoices has automatically emerged as one of the key election issues.