Barry Jones has identified one of the ALP’s problems and that is the disappearing rank and file member. One reason that the members might feel disenfranchised might be found in the actions of the ALP leadership when a rock star was parachuted into a safe ALP seat.

The rank and file might be further bemused to know that Carmen Lawrence is viewed as a credible wellspring on which the ALP should build its future. That demonstrates clearly that the ALP ‘think tank’ hasn’t a clue as to how to rid itself of that albatross. And talk about heart and soul. There’s a young lady in WA who would have welcomed some heart and soul from Lawrence.

If that’s not enough to offend the ALP rank and file consider how they must be feeling today. One of the ALP’s living treasures, self-declared pansophists and who just happens to be the world’s greatest treasurer seemingly approves of jihad and those who propose and sponsor jihad.

Barry Jones has sounded a tocsin but who is listening.

Sage, Has things partially correct as usual, however returning to the main subject. The Federal ALP will never win another long term in Federal Government untill it does two things. 1. Learns to negotiate between the factions and come up with a comprimise that all can happily live with, i.e. policies that contain essential elements of both factions, [by the way every political party has factions, even the Liberal's which has become very apparent in NSW recently] 2. That an overall plan, that is every portfollio has specific pocily projected outcomes, that will be beneficial to the majority of Australians, much like Gough Withlam took to the 1972 election, with Shadow Ministers out there everyday explaining the benefits of their policies, which cover every aspect of political life.[Shadow Ministers are a Whitlam ceation which like so many of his other policies have stood the test of time]

Much like John Hewson's "fightback" it must be an intergrated set of policies which follow nature in essence, "everything related to everything else" this is not an easy task, however it is a task the public have the right to expect from any and every political party.

John Howard survives on the division of the community "bosses v workers" "rich v poor" etc, this country has always worked much more efficently when we all work together, united. This is the challenge for Federal ALP, if they hope to win they will need to do this as today's ALP bears no resembalence in either appearence or policy to the men who stood under the "tree of knowledge" all those years ago, advocating a fairer go for working class people. The ALP MUST REMEMBER WHY IT WAS CREATED AND RETURN TO ITS ROOTS IN PHILOSOPHY, or be content to remain the largest "pressure group" in Australia. No party can implement policy from the oppossition benches. Whitlam was once asked if he minded his Ministers acting like Prima Donna's, to which he replied, not at all so long as I am the Prima Donna Absoluta, this is the attitude that is required.

I stopped being engaged with ALP politics when at a public meeting a Senator (who is still there) said quite plainly that it was people like him who made policy and the decisions and not rank and file members like me.

Let's face it the internal structures of the ALP are designed to ensure the salariat who run it (union officials included) control their ever diminishing universe. One improvement might be to limit paid employees of politicians , the party and affiliated unions from standing for office for say 12 months from when they leave their job.

I agree with more internal democracy. How about electing State and National Councils with affiliated Union members being able to vote as well ? This may help to break the hold of faceless cadres and power broking union leaders and at least ensure a broad cross section of teh community would get to vote.

Of course this is not very likely while there are State Labor Governments. The elites of the State parties will block anything democratic until they are dislodged. The problem is there will soon be no-one to dislodge anyone as ALP membership is all but non existent.

Wistful thoughts of socialism seem such a waste of time. Some ideas I think we could follow :
1. Working people own most corporations through their super funds and mortgages. How do we democratise business and ensure they operate in our interests and not for a small managerial class ?
2. State solutions to problems have failed thru bureaucratic inertia - we need to create a new civil society , both to deal more efficiently with social problems but also to create a more dynamic layer of interests in society. The State alone will always become tyrannical.
3. We need to come to terms with the environment debate.
4.We need to stop the neo marxist class struggle twaddle like supporting anti woman Islamist murderers.
5. We need to get happy and have a positive agenda that moves beyond traditional statist socialist solutions.

Lunch time is over!

I’m used to complaints about ‘state-centered solutions’ by now – and it really is the fashion to decry anything to do with socialism or the progressive use of state power. A ‘negative essence’ is ascribed to the state – as if almost anything associated with it is, by its very nature, inferior, wrong – even oppressive. A lot of this comes from the rush of the Western Left to disassociate itself from the kind of socialism that existed in the Eastern Bloc – but today it goes even further than that. Even traditional social democracy is ‘decidedly unfashionable’ – as is everything that mitigates against the neo-liberal ‘New Right utopia’ we’re living in. The stigma associated with the state is evidence of the power of the neo-liberal ideology, and the inability of many would be left liberal to stake out a position independent of its influence.

What is so ‘essentially’ wrong with using the state for progressive/redistributive ends? What's wrong with a robust welfare state, social wage and tax-transfer system? What’s wrong with Medicare and the PBS? What's so ‘essentially’ wrong with the idea of a democratic mixed economy – including a robust public sector – except that this goes against the hegemonic ideology? What was wrong with having a public bank that could provide credit to government, provide competition in the banking sector, and provide equal access to services across the country? What’s wrong with the same principle being applied to Medibank Private and Telstra? And how else do people think we’re going to get first class fibre optic cable rollout? What was wrong with the SIO and GIO providing competition in the insurance sector? What’s wrong with the state providing for infrastructure such as roads, rail, schools out of the public purse – instead of the finance sector having to ‘have its cut’ in so-called Public Private Partnerships – that are really the most wasteful means of providing any kind of infrastructure? And what’s wrong, in principle, with GBEs providing competition to the private sector, and a stream of socialized revenue that becomes available for public purposes?

continued........

continued from above........

Finally – what’s wrong with the principle of class struggle? The wage share of the economy has been falling for years. More and more we live in a stratified society. What’s wrong with the principle of those who are poor, oppressed or exploited struggling for justice? And what’s so wrong with the idea that this can be a force for change – for positive change?

Westernred – you’re going to great pains to remain fashionable – but I for one would like an answer to the questions I raise.

Tristan

The suggestion that factions should seek mass membership thereof.
Is this not implying the creation of yet more political parties?