bobnowhere
Member
I saw something yesterday that you have to have been a paid up member for 2 years to be able to vote in leader election.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
AusPoliGAF |OT| Boats? What Boats?
- Thread starter Bernbaum
- Start date
- Status
I saw something yesterday that you have to have been a paid up member for 2 years to be able to vote in leader election.
Yeah, the only problem with that is if Labor changes leadership even once after this, the Libs will skewer them at the next election.
Bah, Labor are a broken party anyway.
Hi im Tony Abbott, you have voted In the party, not the person, as such, we the party have made a decision that we feel will better our blah blah, by placing a man who has better overarching views of all policies, this will allow me, mrabbott to move to a role that gives me the chance to focus wholly on the big ticket items for you, the fair dinkum aussie. As such I will be taking up the job of sniper on one of our naval vessels. Taking out the boats.
shanshan310
Member
Even after all of those people leaving, you don't think the party can fix itself?Thaaaaaat's creepy.
CrazedProfessional
Member
The reforms make it 150% harder for them to change leader during government. If I recall, over 50% of the vote needed to change opposition leader & over 70% of the vote needed to change Prime Minister.
Kevin Rudd clearly thought this through.
Kevin Rudd clearly thought this through.
I think it might be 60% while in opposition.
CrazedProfessional
Member
Yeah so they really don't want to change leaders very often.
shanshan310
Member
wait, when did this happen?
CrazedProfessional
Member
When Kevin Rudd reformed the Labor Party 2-3 months ago?
shanshan310
Member
I need to pay more attention to things.
TriangleOfCorruption
Member
first dog summed up this thread's/seemingly everyone on the left's mood today.
CrazedProfessional
Member
3 Years until Albotopia
Ruthless_Barbarian
Member
Saw this on facebook
Thaaaaaat's creepy.
I think the last 20 years have created a divide in the party between the socially conservative, economically left, union based faction, and the socially progressive but more centrist economic group. I don't see the current formal factions as being something that will be workable as time goes on.
CrankyKong
Member
I was in Wangaratta the day before the election and saw a large crowd of McGowan supporters marching up and down the main road and got a lot of of honking horns in support.
Orange banners and stickers all over the place too.
Seems like the locals really turned on Mirabella.
Bill Shorten is a power-hungry arsehole who would sell the country down the road if he thought he could wrangle a better position out of it. I may be wrong, because people can change and I worked with him around ten years ago but I wouldn't bet my last dollar on him being a decent leader.
Julia Gillard wrote a very long article about Labor in the Guardian. I don't think she's right about everything in there, but it's definitely worth a read: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/13/julia-gillard-labor-purpose-future?CMP=twt_gu
It's good, but she is I think over blowing some of the sentiments in the community:
I wouldn't say there is a pro worker national consensus. It is better than the US, by far, but I wouldn't call Australia pro worker.
I agree. There was a lot of animosity towards Workchoices because it affected virtually everybody. Not just working class people.
Elaugaufein
Member
Its interesting to see that she can be just as vainglorious as Rudd. I mean its not surprising considering she was willing to knife him in the back in the first place (and then complain when he turns around and knifes back). But it doesn't fit with the narrative that surrounded her while she was Prime Minister.
And yeah, if the US is a valid point of comparison you're not pro-worker. The US is anti-worker to the point where even the workers are for channeling more money to the rich and getting less themselves (which can probably be attributed to belief "The American Dream"/belief in a social mobility that in practice doesn't really exist ).
shanshan310
Member
D.Lo
Member
I bet we're going to get Shorten thanks to his control of enough of caucus and we'll all collapse in a heap because he'll be another tainted divisive leader like Gillard was.
RE: Gillards thing - the simple truth about Rudd is that if they didn't want him there they shouldn't have elected him in the first place. It was pretty obvious what he was going to be like (Kevin 07? Not much mention of Labor there...), and Rudd was the one who got it together, had the personal discipline to stay on target and brought down Howard. Everyone was happy to ride that in Labor after they'd failed to stick it to Howard for 9 years (98 was the last time Beazley really had the fight in him).
She's an immense hypocrite on Rudd. She rode his wave, they ditched him on the basis of what would have been winning polls based on history, then ignored the polls like they didn't matter. And nothing Rudd ever did, even if he did leak stuff, was anywhere near as treacherous as getting Wong, Combet and herself etc to publicly slander a former Prime Minister and current sitting member of their own party.
RE: Gillards thing - the simple truth about Rudd is that if they didn't want him there they shouldn't have elected him in the first place. It was pretty obvious what he was going to be like (Kevin 07? Not much mention of Labor there...), and Rudd was the one who got it together, had the personal discipline to stay on target and brought down Howard. Everyone was happy to ride that in Labor after they'd failed to stick it to Howard for 9 years (98 was the last time Beazley really had the fight in him).
She's an immense hypocrite on Rudd. She rode his wave, they ditched him on the basis of what would have been winning polls based on history, then ignored the polls like they didn't matter. And nothing Rudd ever did, even if he did leak stuff, was anywhere near as treacherous as getting Wong, Combet and herself etc to publicly slander a former Prime Minister and current sitting member of their own party.
Elaugaufein
Member
This brings up a question for me: What is the powerbase of the Left\wing of Labor ? The powerbase of the Labor Right is obvious (the unions). Its pretty obvious the Left has less punch but given that the Greens have basically wondered off with what seems to be ~7%* of Labors Primary Vote, and that nearly all came from the Left, what is the leverage the Left actually hold ?
*(maybe as high as 10% since I know at least a few people who normally vote Greens voted Labor to try and avoid an LNP government (and Labor aided and abetted this by preferencing the LNP over the Greens in the House of Reps, essentially declaring Scorched Earth)
GetUp need to run a campaign explaining that this isn't true. Maybe the Greens can claw back to 10% of the primary vote on the back of an informed electorate.
Also, Fuck Labor. They benefit from all these lower house Greens preferences and reward that with utter hostility and contempt.
D.Lo
Member
No fuck the Greens. The Greens quite often act like privileged rich kids.
They refuse to come to the table on compromises too often. You can't govern from the fringes, and they hold the only viable non-asshole non-rich-people party to ransom.
Where else are their preferences going to go? They won't preference the Libs, the ONE thing they have going for them as pure ideologues is that they will preference based on policy. Labor can comfortably rely on those preferences, and Labor don't owe them anything in return.
viciouskillersquirrel
Member
The Greens are a bit like Christianity before Constantine came along. They have their ideology and they stick to it doggedly come gladiators, lions or public ostracism. They didn't compromise if they could help it because they had the luxury of not having to actually be responsible for the majority.
Elaugaufein
Member
This time around due to the Labor and LNP preference deal in the lower house it was actually true-ish , if the Greens could knock Labour out but not beat both the Labor and Coalition vote combined but if Labor + Greens vote would beat the Coalition vote, then you'd be better off voting Labor.
Labor declared ideological scorched earth, essentially saying that if you were going to Vote Green you'd damn well better be certain that either a)they could win against both the major parties combined or b) they'd get knocked out early and your preference would flow to Labor.
Elaugaufein
Member
Compromise is not inherently virtuous. If your starting position is that everyone should be nice and their starting position is that they'll kick you in the groin and things settle on them punching you in the stomach, you have certainly not done good and may have done evil by compromising.
Also this is a bit two-faced. They act like privileged rich kids for having the courage of their convictions , but when those convictions benefit you, you owe them nothing ? I mean this is clearly how Labor views the situation given what they did with Lower House preferences but its hardly what I would describe as non-asshole action.
D.Lo
Member
No, it's quite often the reality that you have to choose between the country getting punched in the stomach or kicked in the groin. That's the balancing act of government. For example, choosing what research to fund, where aid should go, or what dugs get funded. Someone always loses, it cannot be perfect for everyone.
There's no point having a 'be nice to everyone' policy when it isn't realistic. Minor parties can get away with rhetoric like that but the Greens are no longer very minor and should make adult decisions.
For example, they killed Rudd's ETS in 2009, by voting with the Libs. They then forced Labor in minority government to introduce an ETS that everyone knew was politically difficult. Labor has now been voted out as a result, and they will now get basically NO ETS.
They rejected a 6/10 policy, forced a 7/10 policy on Labor, and the country will now end up with a 3/10 policy.
Who's better off in the end? Nobody except Abbott and big business. They could have compromised better on the first ETS, and tried to build from there. It's easier to go from 6 to 10 than it is from 3 to 10.
That's not how preferences work. The Greens are free to preference Libs or other right-wing nutters over Labor. But if they do, it will hurt them for breaking their ideology, which, as demonstrated in their policy decisions, is their only selling point.
Labor can comfortably rely on those preferences, because you will be hard pressed to find a Green voter who would prefer Liberal to Labor. However, many Labor people may prefer Liberal to Greens running the country.
And the reality is the Melbourne if have a risk of going to the Libs by Labor and the Greens splitting the vote, depending who got knocked out first, because of the haphazard way the preferences could flow.
Personally I am closer to the Greens platform in policy preference. But as a party they too often act as a special interest group or a protest group, and not as country-managers.
Elaugaufein
Member
I didn't say that compromise was always bad , I said it is not inherently a virtue.
Going from a 6/10 to 10/10 scheme may also be more difficult in politics given its partisan nature. A centrist voter may regard a 6/10 as "good enough", while a 3/10 clearly is not , so in terms of achieving real change a 3/10 may be more desirable. But that's a complex calculation.
Melbourne was risked because Labor chose to split the preference flows in such a way that it was possible by putting the LNP ahead of the Greens on their How to Vote. If Labor had done as they usually had and put the Greens ahead of the Liberals in Melbourne then there would have been no real chance of it going to the LNP (the primary vote was not at all in conservative favor) . Instead Labor was more interested in regaining Melbourne than in keeping it out of Liberal hands, they were betting on either gaining it themselves off Coalition preferences or regaining it next time, when it would be a left leaning area with a conservative incumbent. There is almost no chance at all they were hedging on what happened, with the Greens holding the seat in their own right, because I doubt there was a political analyst in the country who saw it coming.
D.Lo
Member
Okay but you can see where I'm coming from though? I feel on several points they have made the wrong call in such a way, and they have held disproportionate power relative to their vote at points. Well aware that's how the system works etc, but I definitely feel they haven't helped by working on consensus and compromise enough to have some sort of unity from the left. People's Judean Front etc. Their politics has at times been divisive on the left because that benefits them, not the overall cause of helping the most people with the resources we have.
I'm looking back to Labor for that sort of vision for the country.
Fair enough. That was the Labor line at least.
Elaugaufein
Member
Yeah, I see where you're coming from.
I'm just not sure it has a good end result,one outcome is essentially where the ALP finds itself now, torn between Left and Right factions , with the Right generally holding the reigns.
Compromise doesn't usually favor the Left in the UK/USA/AUS because while you can find prominent examples of the extreme, the fear of Russia and China has ensured that you won't see any examples of the extreme left with any prominence , it means the public will generally perceive the "half-way" point and thus reasonable compromise as being as being more rightward than it is*. Even without that disadvantage progress tends to be slow, since power-holders will generally favor the status quo and people are generally adverse to risk.
The only real advantage progressives have is that merely be introducing new ideas you change the shape of future debate, so things that would have been unthinkably progressive at one time are now things that even conservatives are reluctant to challenge. But that's meaningless for the relatively short term political battleground where things are measured in blocks of time shorter than a decade.
Essentially I kind of think what we need are a few prominent loony left wingers to remind people where the center actually is, more than the Left deciding that what they really want to do is not be progressive.
I also don't think the Greens have held power disproportionate to their vote really , if the ALP really and genuinely objected to the Greens they could have done deals with the LNP instead. The Greens disproportionate influence only really comes about because the ALP decided they were more likely to reach a compromise they found palatable with the Greens than with the LNP. As a bonus they could blame anything that their more right voters didn't like on those extremist Greens. Even in the Lower House the Greens had 1 representative whereas there were a bunch of independents who were generally to the right of the ALP , so the minority government held to ransom doesn't really work there either.
*I'm not even sure how the hell we arrive in the situation we have with refugees where the LNP policy is a blatant violation of human rights obligations and the ALP policy is better only because its merely an obvious violation of human rights obligations.
Elaugaufein
Member
Also this to some extent. Conservative parties are practically regressive ,in some areas, to the point where they won't even touch ideas, that have reached societal consensus, with a 10' stick e.g. gay marriage has more than 50% of the vote.
Or apologising for the stolen generation.
D.Lo
Member
I see at least Rudd's take on refugee policy as purely pragmatic. He needed to take that policy debate off the table for now, because there are only so many battles you can fight at once. Am I happy with deaths at sea and inhumane treatment of refugees? No, but I'd prefer, say, good indigenous policy and bad refugee policy to bad indigenous AND bad refugee policy. And if option A is more likely to be elected, I can get back to better refugee policy sooner.
Another point about the Greens, and all minor parties, is that they're effectively permanently in opposition. They are never going to govern, they don't need to create workable policy and actually manage government departments. And oppositions can spend all their time campaigning, much like Abbott has for the last four years. They can write speeches and go on TV instead of manage the country.
That's why a left-right divide inside Labor is better than everything left of centre being divvied up between smaller parties to me. An actual socialist has a chance of being in charge of workplace relations or education or welfare.
We don't have direct democracy, so a voice for the left within a major party has the best chance of making a difference.
Yes Labor have been idiots, and allowed themselves to be wedged by tories for a generation. Them's the breaks.
Another point about the Greens, and all minor parties, is that they're effectively permanently in opposition. They are never going to govern, they don't need to create workable policy and actually manage government departments. And oppositions can spend all their time campaigning, much like Abbott has for the last four years. They can write speeches and go on TV instead of manage the country.
That's why a left-right divide inside Labor is better than everything left of centre being divvied up between smaller parties to me. An actual socialist has a chance of being in charge of workplace relations or education or welfare.
We don't have direct democracy, so a voice for the left within a major party has the best chance of making a difference.
Yes Labor have been idiots, and allowed themselves to be wedged by tories for a generation. Them's the breaks.
Elaugaufein
Member
The Greens certainly don't seem to regard themselves as permanently in opposition, in fact one of the criticisms sometimes leveled against them is that they seek to replace Labor. They actually had their policies costed and available before the media blackout (which is more than you can say for the LNP).
The lower house voting system means that that's pretty much rainbows and fairy dust though (no system in which you can theoretically have 49% of the vote and 0 Seats is friendly to newcomers). There's only 2 ways the Greens are going to replace Labor and both rely on Labor effectively self-destructing. Either by moving so far right they become indistinguishable from the LNP and become an irrelevancy or by self-destructing in a left/right faction war.
I think they can be forgiven for acting like they are permanently in opposition because , especially if they regard themselves as a potential Government, they effectively are. While their ideals are closer to Labor than the Liberals, there's significantly more divide between Labor and the Greens than say the Libs and the Nationals. In some policy areas there's a greater gap between Labor and the Greens than the LNP and Labor.
bobnowhere
Member
There's been a very successful effort over the last few elections to remove most of the moderate voices in the Liberal Party and a completely successful campaign to remove the Liberals Parties Left Wing. There are a few prominent moderates like Turnbull and Hockey who are far to popular to boot out and only one real slight leftie in Russel Broadbent left. Make no mistake, the only way to get preselection nowadays in the party is to completely subscribe to the Nick Minchin playbook, the real faceless man behind the Liberal Party.
Interestingly the real joker in the pack the Abbott. He comes from a DLP catholic conservative Labor Party root and in a lot of ways is very different to the modern Liberal Party. Quite what they make of him at Lib HQ would be interesting to know. He may have delivered a crushing victory but I suspect he will provide an annoying amount of middle-of-the-road opposition to the IPA dog-eat-dog paradise those faceless men, probably not any women, of the Liberal Party.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked