The New South Wales Premier, Morris Iemma, has deferred a vote on electricity privatisation (which he would have lost due to Labor MPs voting to uphold party policy) in order to negotiate with the Coalition for its support. An admininstration in permanent crisis teaming up with the opposition to introduce something opposed by a large majority of voters. Not a good look.
19 Responses to “One party state”
Leave a Reply
Please read the comments policy. If you would like an icon beside your comment, please register a Gravatar.
There is a Comments Preview function below the typing box which activates when you start typing.
Why don’t the ALP just disendorse him as leader? The NSW liberals need a right wing, corruptible dunce, he should just join them instead.
Where is the accountability of the Parliamentary Party to the organisational structure of the Party as a whole?
It seems like there is none, if the Premier continues to defy the State Conference and their own policy platform.
Why don’t they roll Iemma? I don’t know much about NSW politics, but surely anyone would be better.
It’s rather poignant that this sort of thing is happening just as the Democrats are about to disappear from the Senate scene.
The dysfunction of the NSW political system (and that of several other states) has strengthened my view that Australian politics needs, amongst other things, a party which would be explicitly constituted as an accountable government party, and whose binding core platform would consist of policies relating to democratic and accountable government (”keeping the bastards honest”). On issues outside this core platform members would have a free vote. Such a party could bring together in an organised way the kinds of individuals, ranging from moderate small ‘c’ conservatives such as Peter Andren through to moderate progressives such as the late Peter Andren, who have tried to bring about more accountable government in recent years, and could pick up quite a few Democrats as well.
Given my own political position I would not leave the Greens to join such a party myself, but I would hope the Greens would have a positive relationship with it. I would also hope the decent people still grinding away inside the major parties would welcome the emergence of such a group.
I think Iemma is shortly to appear before the equivalent of an ALP disciplinary committe in August, I think. He is expected to be defiant.
As to why the party hasn’t already expelled him and Costa. Well, despite the instruction of the rank and file. a lot of ALP pollies prefer to take their orders from business, not their own party. They’re so used to being capitalist lackeys (and this is particularly true of NSW ALP), they’ve forgotten how not to be. A prominent member of that faction once told me, “Business runs this country and we forget that at our peril.” All that sucking up to Rupert Murdoch isn’t done just to provide him with a photo opportunity with Rudd, you know.
It’s not just a NSW phenomenon.
Quentin Dempster (ABC Radio National 17th June) pointed out that RJL Hawke & PJ Keating repeatedly ignored National Conference.
As did countless other ALP leaders, back through the decades.
’twas ever thus
Paul Norton, I’m a big fan of the Democrats allowing the rank and file to select the parliamentary leadership. Not sure how it’d work in a governing party, though. The NSW ALP structure will fight, tooth and nail, every single attempt made to weaken the executive in favour of a stronger rank and file. The members are there to provide funding through their dues and sausage sizzles while the big boys get to play factional games.
Plenty of governing parties use direct election by voters/members of the leader. In the UK both the Tories and the Labour Party, as well as the Lib Dems, use some form of ballot of members combined with a ballot of MPs. All Canadian parties are legislatively required to elect leaders through a party convention. Not to mention primaries for all levels of government in the US.
And still NO detailed (not rhetorical) explanation from the Iemma regime as to WHY this bizarre and divisive neoliberal policy has been forwarded, despite the destructive political impact and the likely harm it will do NSW. Very little didactic being offered, although have read articles by Quiggin and Dr.John Legge attempting to explicate it to the benefit of we proles.
I agree certain with posters; why can’t they just get rid of Iemma and more to that point, that nutcase Costa.
In fact the whole lot; both sides of politics, eg Nelson and his bloody antagonising “emoting”, right across the country.
Reinforces the recent impression, week by week; beat up after beat-up, something really IS sick as to Aussie political culture just now; they are all like so many foaming at the mouth and morbid Tassie Devils.
Iemma’s in a very interesting position and I think this will be a very interesting subject for political scientists in the next few years.
But come on, do you really think policy should be determined by internal party politics? Cliched as it might be, parliamentarians are supposed to represent the people not their party (especially when a large proportion of their party is in clear position of conflict, and many more are simply opposed to privatisation on an ideological basis). True, the people also seem to oppose privatisation, but the majority of Australians also seem to want a cut in petrol excise, does that mean K-Rudd should introduce a bill tomorrow? I’m not saying parliamentarians should do what they want, but these things aren’t clear cut.
Iemma also deserves some sympathy, he inherited a basket case from Bob Carr and this has been compounded by all the broader economic pressures. I’m not saying he’s done a fantastic job, but he doesn’t deserve all the blame. In particular, the public, the media and politicians should take some responsibility for the current climate of government by press release and scandal. It’s impossible to think about policy in NSW anymore, everything is about politics and I don’t think people realise how much this affects the machinery of government. This culture is also probably part of the reason the state branches of both parties are so puerile.
Iemma’s actually shown a lot of character with his electricity policy (I guess he figures he screwed either way). I suspect that many of you would be happy to support Iemma if the issue was different (i.e. you agreed with him). If this is true, ask yourselves why you are making cheap points about process rather than debating the policy itself.
Tim H, the history of privatisations, I’m sure you’ll agree, from the time of Thatcher and voodoo economics on, has been a pretty tragic one.
Apart, of course from destroying public confidence in Democracy
( always a plus!) and ensuring that public wealth and the public power that counterbalances the Murdochs of this world, has been transferred to the least deserving and most pathological of people, under the most flimsy of alibis.
We are not fools because we cry, “enough”. We would be fools if we didn’t.
“And still NO detailed (not rhetorical) explanation from the Iemma regime as to WHY this bizarre and divisive neoliberal policy has been forwarded, despite the destructive political impact and the likely harm it will do NSW.”
So what bit of “after you leave public life, we can offer you an annual $250,00 to 500,000 retainer plus 1% of any deals you stitch up for us (”us” being Macquarie Bank, KPMG or such like)” don’t you understand?
This is not exactly a new development in the post-political careers of politicians - everywhere. And well across party lines *cough*Alan Stockdale”cough*Steve Bracks”cough.
Interestingly enough the two most prominent Australian politicians of recent times I can recall who haven’t seriously played this particular endgame are Jeff Kennett and Paul Keating. Whom the last time I saw them together, were as thick as thieves.
And can we spare a thought for poor old John Howard (a former Australian PM) who, from what I’ve heard, can’t get any truly lucrative or influential gigs anywhere. The corporates see him as yesterday’s man and the think tanks have discovered he’s a complete dud without the kind of support structure that they’re just not prepared to pony up for to sell a fading message.
What bit about consultancies don’t I understand, Nabakov?
Especially when the alternative is a tabloid slagging of the sort Bel and Del, our beleaguered anti-privatisation power-couple, have copped?
You should ask others at this thread that question, not me- I understand all too well what it means.
Where ARE Bob Carr and alternatively, Ticky Fullarton, these days?
“Quentin Dempster (ABC Radio National 17th June) pointed out that RJL Hawke & PJ Keating repeatedly ignored National Conference.”
Did Hawke/Keating ever lose a big showdown with NAtional Conference? The only big fight I can personally recall was the Qantas privatisiation, with Hawke telling the delegates they would be hand the conservatives the government’s head on a platter if they didn’t support the changes the Parliamentry Party wanted. The conference backed Hawke.
“But come on, do you really think policy should be determined by internal party politics? Cliched as it might be, parliamentarians are supposed to represent the people not their party…”
But voters also know the Australian system is one of rigid party discipline and when you vote for a person, you’re voting for the Party’s platform and promises. Your point would be stronger if the Conference had *changed* the platform the Party had taken to the election or if there had been a dramatic and unexpected change in the environment but Power privatisation was the subject of a big public promise, the Conference voted to maintain its existing policy and and the problems Iemma ‘inherited’ were well known and created by a government in which he was a member!
He doesn’t deserve a shred of sympathy and he’s not displaying any noble character merely an untrammeled desire to get his own way, whatever the circumstances and the cost. The stakes are getting so high now, I’m curious about what’s really driving this sale. It can’t really just be ego, can it?
d
The two biggest fights I can remember them losing - Hawke backing down on the MX missile; Keating losing his push for a consumption tax at the Tax Summit - occurred outside National Conference.
It is woth noting though that Unions NSW think Iemma and the Bald Iggle from Hell are esartz Liberals after spending months of negotiating with them on electricity privatisation.
Paul Burns, isnt it a worry when you think about it, when Della Bosca becomes the default “left” defence position in a government ( the world being flat, Iemma and Costa already fallen off the edge ).
A prelude to Wilson Tuckey or even Sophie Mirabilis nominated for this year “Leon Trotsky Memorial Civil Society Defence Award”?
To clarify, Della is not ‘anti-privatisation’ at all. He does appear to be trying to limit damage from the split between Cabinet and Conference, which has (according to media reports) seen him argue for more conciliation and slowing down by Iemma/Costa.
Della is on record supporting the sell-off though, and has never been on the list of ‘rebels’ (that is, people who support their party’s own policy).
As to why not roll Iemma, name a credible right-faction alternative. There simply isn’t one. Hell, the last time the media scrounged around for a potential successor, all they came up with was Della! He’s not even in the right chamber.
Nothing about the ALP shifting to the right surprises me since Hawke. Trouble is, when the ALP moved right the Coalition went far to far far right. Neither move was good for the country. In a sense, we can blame Hawke for Howard.