2013 Election Year Party Policies- Labor

[Azza]

I was just about to post this. What do think of his points? The media and John Howard and the right in general have done such an effective job of bastardising the left over the past decade that it is tough to see how you can sell anything that comes from the "left". All lefties are bleeding hearts, or pinkos.

I agree with Waleed that Labor is visionless. On the other hand, I’m not sure that a traditional union-based Labor Party can have a lot of relevance any more. Anyone who’s employed in Australia is pretty damn affluent these days, especially in comparison to the real poor on the planet. That’s probably contributed to the undermining of the Labor Party raison d’etre.

I also like Waleeds point -
Governments ultimately thrive on narrative. Voters are not merely electing a suite of set policies. They are electing a party that will respond to future, unforeseen policy questions. They therefore need to know what you're about. That's what a clear consistent story tells them.”

If I could wave a magic wand I’d like to see an Australia modelled more along Scandinavian lines, more independent and with an emphasis on social justice and environmental responsibility. We went down that track for a while, but have since veered towards the US economic rationalist model. Neither side of politics seems interested in the sort of place I’d like to live in and raise my kids. I don’t know if it’s because it just doesn’t resonate with a significant proportion of the Australian population, because big business and media have too much of a grip on the political agenda, or because our narrow-minded poll-driven political party system has ensured that no REAL leader has stood up and presented it as a viable alternative.

 

[mld]

That piece is a bit of a mess, really, Waleed is at his worst when he starts carrying on about what parties stand for/used to stand for. I suppose the key point in there is that they can't compete with the LNP from the right, which is a point so self-evident that only the Labor party can't see it.

 

[tigersnake]

That piece is a bit of a mess, really, Waleed is at his worst when he starts carrying on about what parties stand for/used to stand for. I suppose the key point in there is that they can't compete with the LNP from the right, which is a point so self-evident that only the Labor party can't see it.

Agree mld. As I was reading it I was thinking 'yes', 'um' 'what?', 'yes', 'no'. He's right on Howard's effective and simple communication. He's right that Labor are no longer just trade union based. But to me that doesn't explain the confusion and malaise. There is still plenty of room to be a social-democrat party. I think the problem is the *allegedly* (thats for you rosy) corrupt elements within the party, being the NSW right, being too hard to contain and control. its like one of those pop up whacking games at the show. Eddie Obeid represents everything thats wrong with Labor. Its been known for at least 5 years, but they can't seem to eradicate or even reduce their influence. I'd like to see the NSW right totally expunged from the ALP, chuck the cynical crooked bastards out.

And Gillard has the hide to tee off on the Greens? amazing.

(Waleed Ali is a one-eyed tiges man BTW)

 

[tigersnake]

I agree with Waleed that Labor is visionless. On the other hand, I’m not sure that a traditional union-based Labor Party can have a lot of relevance any more. Anyone who’s employed in Australia is pretty damn affluent these days, especially in comparison to the real poor on the planet. That’s probably contributed to the undermining of the Labor Party raison d’etre.

I also like Waleeds point -
Governments ultimately thrive on narrative. Voters are not merely electing a suite of set policies. They are electing a party that will respond to future, unforeseen policy questions. They therefore need to know what you're about. That's what a clear consistent story tells them.”

If I could wave a magic wand I’d like to see an Australia modelled more along Scandinavian lines, more independent and with an emphasis on social justice and environmental responsibility. We went down that track for a while, but have since veered towards the US economic rationalist model. Neither side of politics seems interested in the sort of place I’d like to live in and raise my kids. I don’t know if it’s because it just doesn’t resonate with a significant proportion of the Australian population, because big business and media have too much of a grip on the political agenda, or because our narrow-minded poll-driven political party system has ensured that no REAL leader has stood up and presented it as a viable alternative.

I agree. But I think an improved brand of economic rationalism, ecological/ economic rationalism. That is, markets and firms that value rather than discount ecology. That shift is where the solution lies I believe, as I've said a billion times, the CT represents an pivottal initial baby step in that direction.

 

[Azza]

I agree. But I think an improved brand of economic rationalism, ecological/ economic rationalism. That is, markets and firms that value rather than discount ecology. That shift is where the solution lies I believe, as I've said a billion times, the CT represents an pivottal initial baby step in that direction.

I don't know much about economics, but I would have thought putting a price on the environment, not to mention improving social justice (including the 3rd world), would mean a lot more intervention than economic rationalists would tolerate.

 

[tigersnake]

Its on I'd say. Rudd kissing babies surrounded by people in 'its our ruddy future' t shirts down on my local syreet right now.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Its on I'd say. Rudd kissing babies surrounded by people in 'its our ruddy future' t shirts down on my local syreet right now.

He can kiss my arse. Pusillanimuos little pissant. Anyone capable of that level of self-interested mud-slinging from the back-bench can't be worthy can they? Say what you like about Gillard there weren't stories weekly coming from her office hamstringing Rudd.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

That piece is a bit of a mess, really, Waleed is at his worst when he starts carrying on about what parties stand for/used to stand for. I suppose the key point in there is that they can't compete with the LNP from the right, which is a point so self-evident that only the Labor party can't see it.

I think Keating said exactly this to Beazley. You can't outflank a true conservative from the right. That is why Labor got "children overboard" so wrong and still don't get it apparently.

 

[K3]

Its on I'd say. Rudd kissing babies surrounded by people in 'its our ruddy future' t shirts down on my local syreet right now.

Bloody hell... where's a 'grassy knoll' when you need one?

 

[KnightersRevenge]

I agree. But I think an improved brand of economic rationalism, ecological/ economic rationalism. That is, markets and firms that value rather than discount ecology. That shift is where the solution lies I believe, as I've said a billion times, the CT represents an pivottal initial baby step in that direction.

So what do you do in an old and slow moving Westminster-styled two-party democracy to get people on board? Can a new "Social Democrats" party spring phoenix-like from the ashes of what will be left of Labor after September?

 

[Liverpool]

He can kiss my arse. Pusillanimuos little p!ssant. Anyone capable of that level of self-interested mud-slinging from the back-bench can't be worthy can they? Say what you like about Gillard there weren't stories weekly coming from her office hamstringing Rudd.

I think Rudd will just sit back and let the media and others "wonder" whether he will run for the leadership or not, all the while having this notion and talk, undermine Gillard.
Gillard then loses the next election and the ALP then beg for him to come back to lead them.
That's his plan and I think a smart one.

He wants to see Gillard suffer and go down as the one who lost the election and decimated the ALP.
He may yet get his wish.

Gillard has been on the nose ever since she shafted Rudd and then brought out the carbon-tax....Rudd was garbage as PM (or have people forgotten?)....so why should the ALP get anyone's vote?

The problem is, people want Gillard/ALP out more than they want Abbott....thats not good for the ALP.

 

[Azza]

.Rudd was garbage as PM (or have people forgotten?)....so why should the ALP get anyone's vote?

You make some good points livers, but it would seem that some people, particularly in Qld, HAVE forgotten how bad Rudd was (or never acknowledged it to start with).

 

[KnightersRevenge]

The problem is, people want Gillard/ALP out more than they want Abbott....thats not good for the ALP.

Quite.

 

[tigergollywog]

I think Rudd will just sit back and let the media and others "wonder" whether he will run for the leadership or not, all the while having this notion and talk, undermine Gillard.
Gillard then loses the next election and the ALP then beg for him to come back to lead them.
That's his plan and I think a smart one.

You are trying to look through Rudds eyes as if he is endowed with the normal cognitive tool kit that most of us have Livsy. Rudd is sociopath. he doesnt want to be opposition leader. He want to rule Australia on the way to ruling the world.

IMO, he will go for the job pre election. In his mind, the prodigal son will then lead the ALP to a victory for the true beleivers. He'd be practicing the speech in front of the mirror already. The reality is, despite any polls, the whole party and a good chunk of the nation understand what he is, even though he doesnt. He'll have a crack and irrespective of the outcome, the ALP will be trounced. You cant run a party like the Sicilian mafia and expect people to keep buying it. His PM'ing days are over.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Party Games: For sanity's sake, let's ban talk of Kevin

by: Dennis Atkins
From: The Courier-Mail
February 26, 2013 12:00AM
"UNLESS you are an easily amused insomniac who watches Lateline, this morning's Newspoll would have greeted you at breakfast.

The figures certainly would not make for easy reading at the breakfast table of Julia Gillard.

Support for the prime minister has slumped to its lowest point since August last year. As reported by The Australian today, a poll conducted over the weekend pegged voter satisfaction for Ms Gillard at 36 per cent compared to Tony Abbott's 40 per cent.

Labor's primary vote is just 31 percent to the Coalition's 47 per cent, leading to a two-party preferred result of 55-45 in favour of the Coalition.

So what does this mean for the Labor leadership? Well, voter madness, for one.

The election is on September 14. That means dozens of opinion polls, and we will go collectively nuts if we approach each one with a hypothesis about the impact on the Labor leadership and the Member for Griffith, Kevin Rudd.

For the sake of sanity all round, let's declare a ban on talking about Rudd until he actually does something.

The usual Kevin stuff is what we're familiar with - self-serving, attention-seeking, social media stunts or some tricked up school visit where he incites the crowd to scream and wave.

His television appearances are increasingly strange - did anyone understand the yelling, finger-pointing spot with Joe Hockey on Sunrise last week? - and his radio interviews include extreme narcissism.

The import of all this is close to zip.

There has been no great movement of caucus votes.

In fact, despite increasing depression and despondency, most of Rudd's parliamentary colleague's find his behaviour annoying and counterproductive.

The usual response from exasperated MPs is: "Why won't he just shut up?"

As explained here last week, the institutional blocks in Labor are sticking with Gillard and show no signs of moving.

This may change if madness and panic take over, but we are not there yet; and no one expects the Labor Party will be at that place when the House meets again two weeks from today.

If Rudd wants to admit he does crave a return to the prime minister's job, then we'll listen.

If Rudd repeats US civil war general William Sherman's refusal - "If drafted, I will not run; if nominated, I will not accept; if elected, I will not serve" - then we'll listen.

And finally, if Rudd really tells his backers to stop briefing against Gillard and in his favour ... we'll listen.

Until then, give it a rest."

Well said Dennis. If only. The press gallery has a hard on for this story and will continue to talk about it as long it keeps them in the loop with the spineless ministers who are feeding them.

 

[Willo]

^
Well why doesn't Gillard do a proper job on Kevvy? Just sack him from the Labor Party. Oh wait....
You reap what you sow.
If Rudd truly is an anathaema to the Labor Caucus majority and they can see that Gillard is a lame duck I wonder if Bill's Shorten's odds are Shortening? Or will it be a pragmatic but short sighted Rudd13?
It seems a lot of Labor/Gillard people are dropping off in droves. Maybe they can finally see the forest.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

^
Well why doesn't Gillard do a proper job on Kevvy? Just sack him from the Labor Party. Oh wait....
You reap what you sow.
If Rudd truly is an anathaema to the Labor Caucus majority and they can see that Gillard is a lame duck I wonder if Bill's Shorten's odds are Shortening? Or will it be a pragmatic but short sighted Rudd13?
It seems a lot of Labor/Gillard people are dropping off in droves. Maybe they can finally see the forest.

I don't and have never agreed with you on Gillard. I think you are a bit venomous where she is involved. It bears remembering that it was the Libs who blocked supply in 1975 and their stooly in Kerr who virtually "ousted a sitting Prime Minister". She isn't quite the devil she is portrayed IMO. Or at least is no worse than Kerr and Fraser. Rudd isn't the answer and no-one outside the Canberra Press Gallery and Murdoch INC. is even asking the question. Shorten isn't the answer either. Turnbull is probably the answer but to the wrong question. September is pretty much a foregone conclusion. The country is in much better shape than conservatives are willing to admit. If it were nearly as bad as is often suggested it would take more than one term to right it, but here is my prediction. Libs will win. The new treasurer will say something like. "the books are much worse than we though, the ALP was hiding al sorts of problems from us, this will take time....etc". But magically a surplus will be delivered within their first term, and no-one on the conservative side will admit that it just wasn't possible if they were telling the truth about the state of the economy when they took office.

 

[Willo]

I don't and have never agreed with you on Gillard. I think you are a bit venomous where she is involved. It bears remembering that it was the Libs who blocked supply in 1975 and their stooly in Kerr who virtually "ousted a sitting Prime Minister". She isn't quite the devil she is portrayed IMO. Or at least is no worse than Kerr and Fraser. Rudd isn't the answer and no-one outside the Canberra Press Gallery and Murdoch INC. is even asking the question. Shorten isn't the answer either. Turnbull is probably the answer but to the wrong question. September is pretty much a foregone conclusion. The country is in much better shape than conservatives are willing to admit. If it were nearly as bad as is often suggested it would take more than one term to right it, but here is my prediction. Libs will win. The new treasurer will say something like. "the books are much worse than we though, the ALP was hiding al sorts of problems from us, this will take time....etc". But magically a surplus will be delivered within their first term, and no-one on the conservative side will admit that it just wasn't possible if they were telling the truth about the state of the economy when they took office.

So you're going back nearly 40 years. Time to look at the here and now Knighters.
Venomous, you're probably right.
I disagree with you that it's only the Canberra Press Gallery and Murdoch INC. No doubt they can sway some but if Gillard & co were really doing such a sterling job, the proof of the pudding would be in the eating. Wouldn't it? They haven't much to hang their hats on. (Sorry too many metaphors)

Do you think that Gillard is a lame duck as pm?
Do you believe some (or quite a few) Labor mps are getting jittery re their chances under Gillard? (I don't think that's just because they read the papers)
Will there be a push to pusch Gillard? If so will it be Kevvy again or the likes of Shorten, a new "face"
Why doesn't she just knock Kevvy over, if she has the numbers. Possibly they want to keep him around as insurance or because of his "popularity" with some in the electorate.

In reply to your remarks about predicting what "the new treasurer" will say. I doubt very much whether any "magician" could conjure up a surplus with what they'll be left with.
Here's my prediction. Swan/Gillard will announce $billions to be spent in various forms. It will either be a bribe to keep them in or make it so much harder for the next government to exercise financial responsibility. The next government (if it's the Coalition) will have to implement austerity measures and cutbacks to reign in the enormous debt they'll inherit. Such unpopular measures and I hope they means test every aspect of government handouts (even to middle class welfare ) will be playing back to Labor. Whether they are able to capitalise on that remains to be seen. They may have to completely overhaul and review what they actually stand for.

 

[Liverpool]

In reply to your remarks about predicting what "the new treasurer" will say. I doubt very much whether any "magician" could conjure up a surplus with what they'll be left with.
Here's my prediction. Swan/Gillard will announce $billions to be spent in various forms. It will either be a bribe to keep them in or make it so much harder for the next government to exercise financial responsibility. The next government (if it's the Coalition) will have to implement austerity measures and cutbacks to reign in the enormous debt they'll inherit. Such unpopular measures and I hope they means test every aspect of government handouts (even to middle class welfare ) will be playing back to Labor. Whether they are able to capitalise on that remains to be seen. They may have to completely overhaul and review what they actually stand for.

You're not far wrong Willo.

I have stated many times that whoever the next Government will be will have a hell of a time trying to turn things around....the problem is, I think the Libs will give it a go even though they won't be popular doing it with the majority of people.
Don't worry, we will hear the outcries from the Gillard/Rudd/ALP supporters on this very forum every day about the 'bloody Libs' :hihi

With the ALP...well...they're here for a good time, not a long time...it will be eventually someone else's mess to clean up.
Just ask Johnny after Keating.....

 

[KnightersRevenge]

So you're going back nearly 40 years. Time to look at the here and now Knighters.
Venomous, you're probably right.
I disagree with you that it's only the Canberra Press Gallery and Murdoch INC. No doubt they can sway some but if Gillard & co were really doing such a sterling job, the proof of the pudding would be in the eating. Wouldn't it? They haven't much to hang their hats on. (Sorry too many metaphors)

Do you think that Gillard is a lame duck as pm?
Do you believe some (or quite a few) Labor mps are getting jittery re their chances under Gillard? (I don't think that's just because they read the papers)
Will there be a push to pusch Gillard? If so will it be Kevvy again or the likes of Shorten, a new "face"
Why doesn't she just knock Kevvy over, if she has the numbers. Possibly they want to keep him around as insurance or because of his "popularity" with some in the electorate.

In reply to your remarks about predicting what "the new treasurer" will say. I doubt very much whether any "magician" could conjure up a surplus with what they'll be left with.
Here's my prediction. Swan/Gillard will announce $billions to be spent in various forms. It will either be a bribe to keep them in or make it so much harder for the next government to exercise financial responsibility. The next government (if it's the Coalition) will have to implement austerity measures and cutbacks to reign in the enormous debt they'll inherit. Such unpopular measures and I hope they means test every aspect of government handouts (even to middle class welfare ) will be playing back to Labor. Whether they are able to capitalise on that remains to be seen. They may have to completely overhaul and review what they actually stand for.

As I said I think September is a fait accompli so I don't think there is any point talking about Rudd Gillard Shorten et al. deck chairs on the Titanic and all that. My point was just that Gillard isn't this demon lady who stole government off the people, or if she is she has Kerr and Fraser as contemporaries. It will be after the defeat and the soul searching that might prompt a change. I don't expect a Howard style cash bonanza, they don't have the dough and I'm not quite that cynical. I think talk of austerity is a massive over-reaction. Because we missed much of the pain of the GFC our industries didn't get the chance to cut staff and wages and bad debt the way our competitors did. That is what is hurting us at the moment IMO.