The Forum > Article Comments > The Australian Labor Party: incestuous, secretive, sclerotic > Comments
The Australian Labor Party: incestuous, secretive, sclerotic : Comments
By Peter McMahon, published 13/7/2005Peter McMahon argues that even with Lindsay Tanner back on the ALP's front bench, the party is still in dire straits.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- Page 2
-
- All
Posted by Corin, Sunday, 17 July 2005 8:23:29 PM
| |
Thank you, Peter.
As an ex-member who tried to be active for 6 years in the ALP I just feel so sad that we have no effective opposition to the Howard era. All you said about ALP I experienced. And I just can't see anyone who is currently visible who will be able to reform the party. The internal culture is just so corrupt. Perhaps a woman leader, like Gillard might provide a circuit breaker. Beasley just sounds so hollow. Rudd seems to have gone past his best before date. And heaven preserve us from Swan. But the tragic things is that the ALP is back in the pre-Whitlam days, during which the faction mafias rule the roost for the benefit of its annointed. Winning the elections was quite secondary to winning personal advantage. Chek Posted by Chek, Tuesday, 19 July 2005 12:19:10 PM
| |
I completely agree with the column. The Labor Party, save some few exceptions, have been going through the motions. Federally they have no real leadership, passing on two capable people in Rudd and Gillard and failing to recognise others within their ranks. In the States, it is the failure of the Liberal/National Coalition across the nation and not the brilliance of the Labor Governments. If the Coalition were to have real leaders in the States and not their current crop, then Labor would have a real fight on their hands.
Labor has not grabbed hold of the policy agenda for quite some time and unless they have talented and capable leaders who can do that, then they will have to live off Coalition failures in order to survive at elections, rather than winning over the nation. The issues about the nation moving to the "right" or "left" make a false impression on people that the voters are immoveable. They can be moved if they feel either the need to, or the desire. If they feel neither the need or the desire, then they will not move for the ALP. Posted by Seang, Sunday, 31 July 2005 6:57:04 PM
| |
Never has so much been written and said about the chronic and infectous illness plaguing the bloody Labor Party.
Never have so many Labor supporters and commentators put up suggestions and counter opinions on how to fix this illness. And finally, never have so many 'once were Labor supporters' been so utterly disinterested. A tit bit from that famous dead parrot sketch is appropriate: (perhaps we should rename it the Dead party sketch?) Owner: Oh yes, the, uh, the Norwegian Blue...What's,uh...What's wrong with it? Mr. Praline: I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my lad. 'E's dead, that's what's wrong with it! Owner: No, no, 'e's uh,...he's resting. Mr. Praline: Look, matey, I know a dead parrot when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now. Owner: No no he's not dead, he's, he's restin'! Remarkable bird, the Norwegian Blue, idn'it, ay? Beautiful plumage! Mr. Praline: The plumage don't enter into it. It's stone dead. Owner: Nononono, no, no! 'E's resting! http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~ebarnes/python/dead-parrot.htm Posted by Rainier, Sunday, 31 July 2005 8:55:37 PM
|
For Labor as an example - in the 1980's - it held seats like Aston quite well. Whilst the demographics have been against continued victory in that seat given current policies - Bill Clinton or Tony Blair wouldn't write off those kinds of seats would they! They would see them as their bread and butter.
Labor has to accept that to win say 80 to 90 seats which would be a proper mandate - it has to accept the true centre ground reform positions on widening education to skills based trade far more, tax and industrial relations: to repeat 1998 again and get more votes on a static platform but still loose - looks very likely to me.
On tax a framework for investment opportunites is as important as progressive taxation - and in an age of global capital probably more so.
Genuine reform of IR would be an acceptance of the difficulties in compliance by small business but fairer reform than Howard's. Go and see the MUA dispute to see Labor's problem's in being in the centre on workplace issues - it needed a position that matched or bettered the productivity of and provided fairer outcomes for workers than Howard's position. I could write a whole 2,000 essay if you want Fedup!