Labor's Future (1 Viewer)

[Generator]

*bump*

Crean challenge faction 'payback'

Crean challenge faction 'payback'
By Phillip Hudson, Canberra
February 12, 2006

SIMON CREAN is being challenged for his seat in Parliament as "payback" for his attempts to clean up the Labor Party when he was leader, ALP elder Barry Jones says.

It would be a "perversion of the democratic process" if he were defeated, he said.

ACTU president Sharan Burrow also entered the fight for the federal seat of Hotham, saying Mr Crean "shouldn't be publicly challenged in this way". She called for "a deal" to allow a changeover.

Mr Crean, who is 57 this month, won the seat in 1990. He is a former ACTU president and minister in the Hawke and Keating governments. Martin Pakula, the 37-year-old Victorian secretary of the National Union of Workers, is challenging Mr Crean for Hotham.

[continued - see link]

 

[Collin]

For the first time in a decade, my stance on the Liberals have perhaps superseded my affinity for Labor.

 

[gnrlies]

Federally they need two things -

1 - Generational change - big kim needs to go. Simple as that.

2 - Economic Credibility - People have come to assosciate economic prosperity with the liberal party. Even though Keating is probably one of the best treasurers we've ever had, people dont remember his good work. They remember the "banana republic" and "the recession we had to have" one liners. They remember high interest rates, and the 1991 recession. They see howard and they see low interest rates, high employment, low inflation, and strong economic growth. People are voting for the economy and their backpocket, and are subsequently picking the liberals (correct or not). No-one gives a shit about children overboard, or the wheat board scandal, or the iraq war. Its too foreign from their own personal interests for it to be a concern. These issues dont lose many votes for the liberals, especially when the alternative is a fairly conservative labor party.




In terms of state they can win votes because people dont really place as much emphasis on economic credibility. This is more a federal concern. People care about schools, health, roads etc. These are areas where labor has an advantage (although Iemma's not looking too good atm, but then thats just political cycles).

 

[Mongke]

poor labor.

*throws flower into grave*

 

[erawamai]

Labor at the moment seems to be dancing around issues like the AWB scandal (seriously, even if it was true, and the liberal party was more guilty than the ALP could ever hope for.. who would give a f**k?), and issues like the child overboard affair.

300million dollars worth of bribes paid to a regime that was pronouced to be evil by the western world so as to secure a wheat contract is an issue of good government and ministerial responsbility. There is no surprise that the Howard government knows no evil, it's the same response John has used since 1996 *no one told me and I didn't know*.

Of course no one in the Australian public actually cares, much like the children overboard scandal. While something like this may have scored points 40 to 30 years ago the average Australia is too apathetic, igonrant and happy with the current economic situation to care whether his or her tax payer money may have found its way to funding sucide bombers. They are happy with low interest rates that allow them to borrow big and live the high life on money they don't have.

Labor needs to learn to walk before it can run. It needs to find an appropriate leader (and no leader that it has had since Keating has been appropriate) before it even considers taking the next step.

The ALP has no choice but to try anything they can. The AWB stuff is a legitmate political issue that Australia just isn't really interested in.

Then there is Young Labor which has been infiltrated by terrorists like Zahid, and Australians NOTICE Labor's associations with such people, so it makes the whole party questionable in their eyes (Zahid would never ever join Young liberals, would he? So it makes the Liberals seem like a safer alternative).

Young Labor would be better off without the crackpot left who may try to justify terrorism.
The Young Liberals would be better off without the the rednecks who don't know what economic liberalism is.

 

[Generator]

As far as I'm concerned, all that is truly needed is someone with both the strength and the will to kick the factional hacks back into line. As much as this may pain some, the factions are here to stay, so it would be best if the ALP used them for the betterment of the party and the nation-state at large. There's no need for the warlords who are merely in it to create their own little empire that is removed from the world that most call reality - the ALP and Australia deserve much better.

Oh, yes, the above more than implies that Beazley has to go, but not as a sop to the generational change movement. What is truly important is whether the particular member of parliament (shadow minister or not) is capable of performing the role to which they have been assigned - as John Howard shows in a rather impressive way, age counts for little if you are an effective parliamentarian and a strong leader.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

The Young Liberals would be better off without the the rednecks who don't know what economic liberalism is

More like 'The Young Steve Fielding's' - The young liberals need a total purging .

 

[leetom]

I wonder how heavily the senior party relies on the Young Libs for actual talent.

Both Young Labor/Libs should be regarded with a degree of disdain. I was appalled to receive this week's Young Labor notification, not because I'm anti-homosexuality, but because such material utterly destroys any support whatsoever from religious voting bases, which are far more important than gay votes.

Check it out, paying particular attention to the second page. http://www.younglabor.com.au/ylwu/20060208-YLWU-Issue18.pdf

Really, what in fuck's name is 'Rainbow Labor' and how dare they usurp the your rights at work campaign.

 

[Iron]

I would've thought that a progressive/reform issue would strike a much bigger chord with youth (which the group aims to attract), rather than the symbol of tradition and the status quo.
At any rate, it's just a big fat tease.

 

[gnrlies]

I wonder how heavily the senior party relies on the Young Libs for actual talent.

Both Young Labor/Libs should be regarded with a degree of disdain. I was appalled to receive this week's Young Labor notification, not because I'm anti-homosexuality, but because such material utterly destroys any support whatsoever from religious voting bases, which are far more important than gay votes.

Check it out, paying particular attention to the second page. http://www.younglabor.com.au/ylwu/20060208-YLWU-Issue18.pdf

Really, what in fuck's name is 'Rainbow Labor' and how dare they usurp the your rights at work campaign.

Gees, oh my god! the blashpemy!

A major political party has recognised the sexual preference of approximately 10% of the population! Those poor souls!

Theres too much religious influence in the liberal party. They dont need their hands on two parties.

 

[leetom]

Gees, oh my god! the blashpemy!

A major political party has recognised the sexual preference of approximately 10% of the population! Those poor souls!

Theres too much religious influence in the liberal party. They dont need their hands on two parties.

I want to see the ALP elected. That will be difficult if religious groups believe Labor has a 'Rainbow Labor' wing.

I'm not personally opposed to the recognition of homosexuals but I don't want to see the ALP's election chances dashed by overt social progressives.

 

[Generator]

A leader out of touch

Workers are abandoning unions at a time when the ALP is teeming with unionists. No wonder the party's a mess.

 

[gnrlies]

I want to see the ALP elected. That will be difficult if religious groups believe Labor has a 'Rainbow Labor' wing.

I'm not personally opposed to the recognition of homosexuals but I don't want to see the ALP's election chances dashed by overt social progressives.

But see thats where labor is shooting themselves in the foot.

they have to be seen as a progressive party.

At the moment they are as conservative as the liberal party. They need generational change, new blood to attract a new generation of voters who might think outside of voting to keep interest rates low.

The liberal party has always been a haven for the religious conservatives. These are the only kind of voters who would cast all other factors aside and boycott voting for labor because they are more progressive on homosexual issues, and lets face it, the liberals already have their vote anyway!

Labor isn't going to lose votes for being progressive, they are going to gain.

 

[Generator]

But see thats where labor is shooting themselves in the foot.

they have to be seen as a progressive party.

At the moment they are as conservative as the liberal party. They need generational change, new blood to attract a new generation of voters who might think outside of voting to keep interest rates low.

The liberal party has always been a haven for the religious conservatives. These are the only kind of voters who would cast all other factors aside and boycott voting for labor because they are more progressive on homosexual issues, and lets face it, the liberals already have their vote anyway!

Labor isn't going to lose votes for being progressive, they are going to gain.

I take it that you somehow missed however many criticisms concerned with Labor's apparent need to satisfy the desires of the latte classes at the supposed expense of what we now call John Howard's middle Australia?

The ALP is seen by some as being too conservative, yet others see it as being beholden to the Greens and socially progressive notions that aren't the concern of the wider population (as sad as that may be). The party cannot win, it seems, but the fact remains that no matter the ALP's policies, it will always be the prefered option of the progressives and the latte sippers in a two party system. The sooner that the party realises this, the better off this country will be. Yes, there's a need to drag the wider population along, but how the hell can the ALP do this when they are in opposition and always telling the masses that they are ignorant and backward? John Howard and those Liberals of a pragmatic bent are well aware of this, and they exploit the apparent contempt for the masses that many 'elites' display on a regular basis. The sooner that the ALP takes note of this and shifts its focus to the masses, the sooner the party will take the House of Representatives.


ps, much of the above has been said before, and said by people far more knowledgeable and experienced than myself.

 

[gnrlies]

I take it that you somehow missed however many criticisms concerned with Labor's apparent need to satisfy the desires of the latte classes at the supposed expense of what we now call John Howard's middle Australia?

The ALP is seen by some as being too conservative, yet others see it as being beholden to the Greens and socially progressive notions that aren't the concern of the wider population (as sad as that may be). The party cannot win, it seems, but the fact remains that no matter the ALP's policies, it will always be the prefered option of the progressives and the latte sippers in a two party system. The sooner that the party realises this, the better off this country will be. Yes, there's a need to drag the wider population along, but how the hell can the ALP do this when they are in opposition and always telling the masses that they are ignorant and backward? John Howard and those Liberals of a pragmatic bent are well aware of this, and they exploit the apparent contempt for the masses that many 'elites' display on a regular basis. The sooner that the ALP takes note of this and shifts its focus to the masses, the sooner the party will take the House of Representatives.


ps, much of the above has been said before, and said by people far more knowledgeable and experienced than myself.

The reason the party cant win is because they are terrible. The reason labor can't get into the house of reps is because they are hopeless. They are a really bad opposition. I mean if anyone were to say the government was "bad" - lets face it, they by nature can't be worse than their opposition otherwise they wouldnt be in government.

Whether this is politically bad, or they have bad policies, I dont know. Id say its a bit of both. They might have some good policies but they either dont communicate them well, or they just dont have good policies to start with. I think current labor has experienced both over their 10 year presence in opposition.

As far as what the Labor party stands for, progressive VS conservative. This is a question for voters, but I know one thing, and thats that the liberals have their stronghold on conservatism, and theres really no point trying to beat the liberals at their own game. They may has well establish themselves as the party for everyone who wont vote liberal.

I honestly think that the main reason the liberals have been able to maintain government for so long is due to a few simple reasons. Firstly the economy has been managed well, its been performing well, and theyve been able to sustain low unemployment, and interest rates which contrasts very favourably to the electorates last memory of labor. Also I think voters dont give a shit about the latest controversy. So far thats all that labor has had over the liberals. Children overboard, wheat board scandal. I think that no-one cares. As long as everything affecting them is ok then people are going to vote for a government that they know is doing an OK job (if not a good job).

 

[Generator]

Ah, when I said 'they cannot win' I meant that they cannot please anyone no matter what they do. I thought that that would have been quite clear given the preceding sentence.

As for the rest... I stand by my last post, but I will clarify a particular point - the ALP needs to focus on the issues that are considered to be important by middle Australia, but in doing so they shouldn't (and they will not, I know) forget that they are considered to be a somewhat more progressive alternative to the Coalition in many respects. Also, I'd just like to say that the notion that the ALP can hold the majority in the lower house merely by pandering to desires of those who don't support the Coalition is quite naive - the ALP has to both stand on its own feet as a social democratic party and appeal to the majority. As far as I'm concerned, this is possible, if a difficult task for today's ALP.

 

[Generator]

Labor needs me to carry the load: Crean

Labor needs me to carry the load: Crean
Stuart Rintoul
February 20, 2006


SIMON Crean has compared the inexperience of the Kim Beazley-led Labor Opposition to the first Whitlam government as he fights to remain in parliament on the basis of his ministerial experience and contribution to the labour movement.

The former Labor leader, who spent yesterday doorknocking ALP members in his electorate seeking support in his battle for preselection, appealed directly to Mr Beazley, saying: "If I give loyalty, I deserve it in return, and all I'm saying to Kim is, 'Return some of the loyalty, Kim'."

[...]

Mr Crean said there was a signed factional deal that he would not be challenged for preselection in the Victorian seat of Hotham.

This was struck in November 2004 when the National Union of Workers quit their alliance with the Victorian Left and made a new alliance with the right-wing Labor Unity faction.

"This was a direct commitment there would be no challenge," Mr Crean said. "Now you can't get a more fundamental breach than someone saying something to your face but then manoeuvring behind the scenes to do a deal for their own advancement at my cost."

He said that if he survived the challenge from NUW secretary Martin Pakula, it would be viewed as a victory over "insidious backroom dealing".

Faction leaders opposed to Mr Crean confirmed an agreement had been signed, but said the signatories had since "changed their minds".

I just love the factions.

 

[Scanorama]

Labor might have a chance if Beazley steps down and let Julia Gillard becomes the leader. As long as Beazley stays, Labor will still be a opposition party.

 

[Xayma]

Labor needs me to carry the load: Crean



I just love the factions.

Signatories have since "changed their minds". Wow I didn't know we could do that.

If anybody wants to give me $100 now for $1 000 000 in 5 years, just say so, of course I might change my mind.

I'm more suprised with so much concerning him, Crean himself wasn't a signatory.

 

[Generator]

Beazley's front bench 'dismayed' at Crean being left out to dry

Beazley's front bench 'dismayed' at Crean being left out to dry
Michael Bachelard and Samantha Maiden
February 21, 2006


DEEP fractures have appeared in caucus over the challenge to Simon Crean's preselection, with senior Labor frontbencher Martin Ferguson saying there is widespread dismay at Kim Beazley's refusal to intervene in the dispute.

Mr Beazley declined again yesterday to help his former leadership rival in his battle with National Union of Workers state secretary Martin Pakula for the plum Melbourne seat of Hotham, reiterating that all his MPs were vulnerable to preselection challenge. Mr Ferguson said he supported Mr Crean because "it's about the respect you show for your former leaders, it's about the history and tradition of the party".

[continued - see link]

Edit: Labor heavies urge Crean support