There is no doubt that the removal last week of a first term Prime Minister, elected through a largely personal campaign (and I defy anyone to assert that the Kevin07 branding paled into insignificance beside Labor’s party image), caused some real concern, and indeed strong emotions. It’s been clear enough from what has been written on this blog, both in posts and comments, though obviously such sentiments are not universally held. Julia Gillard’s announcement, in her first press conference, that she would not move into The Lodge until she had been elected in her own right, and subsequent statements from Labor Ministers and MPs, as well as Sunday’s Galaxy poll, all show that worries about Kevin Rudd’s downfall extend beyond the narrow circles of political bloggers.
The fact that the Coalition have chosen to focus in on these concerns is not a reason not to discuss them (for fear of giving some sort of aid and comfort to partisan enemies, as some would have it) but just a reflection that opposition politicians can read the public mood as well as Government members. We do have a real problem of democratic legitimacy in this country, at a time when the social bases of parties has atrophied and they have turned their backs on participatory democracy, choosing rather to privilege a narrow range of members of a political caste, whose reward for failure is often a highly paid corporate gig.
I myself would like to see both primaries for candidate selection (trialled at state level by the Nationals in New South Wales and Labor in Victoria) and an electoral college for the Leaders of the major parties. I think that there is no doubt that a narrow basis for selection within caucus and party room leaves leaders more vulnerable to the shifting sands of polls (often misinterpreted by the media) and to campaigns mounted by powerful vested interests.
It may well be, as Guy Rundle argues, that – as in the case of Gordon Brown – a model such as UK Labour’s makes it unduly difficult to remove a leader who’s proved to be a failure. But Brown’s problems stemmed as much from the fact that his legitimacy suffered because he had been anointed in an uncontested leadership election. One could easily envisage a less complex method of revisiting a leadership decision which nevertheless still enjoys greater legitimacy. And, crucially, I’d argue, making the electorate for party leadership broader and less reliant on the climate created by the media noise machine and by the fears and herd mentality of MPs would reset expectations of leadership, and create a different political situation.
I believe it would be a better system.
Julia Gillard could leave a lasting legacy by moving to involve the Australian people and party supporters in a much more direct way in the grave question of who leads us.
The UK Labour Party’s electoral college processes are outlined in this House of Commons Library research brief.
I think these matters are worthy of serious discussion, at some remove now from the extraordinary events of last Wednesday and Thursday. As an additional prompt for debate, I’ve excerpted some of a piece by Ben Eltham published at The Drum today, which I think encapsulates nicely what’s at stake. Read on over the fold.
If you need a snapshot of where politics is at in Australia in 2010, consider this: while top mining executives have the phone numbers of senior government ministers, ordinary voters don’t even get to vote on who the Prime Minister is.
You can of course quibble with my analysis by pointing to Australia’s Westminster tradition, in which the convention holds that Prime Minister must enjoy the support of a majority of the Parliament. On this measure, Julia Gillard clearly has a constitutional right to hold office.
But this ignores the fact that Australian election campaigns get more presidential every term. Political parties might reserve the right to change leaders at their whim, but when it comes around to election time, they campaign hard on the leadership qualities of their key figurehead. In 2007, it was the Australian Labor Party that created and championed “Kevin07″, and it was Labor who made much of the ambiguity created by John Howard’s announcement he would step down for Peter Costello sometime before 2010. Hypocrisy is often taken for granted in politics, but we should remember that every lie and every deception subtracts a little more trust in our democracy.
It’s a point made well recently by Jeff Sparrow, when he writes that “ordinary people are more disenfranchised from the political process than in any time in a generation. The institutions and structures that once allowed Joe and Jane Sixpack a degree of policy engagement beyond a few minutes in a ballot box have been atrophying for years.”
While the grassroots of political parties wither, the vested institutional and corporate interests within them continue to flourish. The Constitutional role of the Senate, for instance, was originally framed as a chamber of states’ rights and executive review. Nowadays it is the easiest path to power for machine politicians from the major parties, who can scheme their way to an unassailable spot on a Senate ticket, thus giving a Nick Minchin or a Mark Arbib a six-year seat in Parliament without the tedium of representing a district in the House.
If last week’s events show anything, they show the need for renewed efforts towards constitutional and electoral reform in Australia, particularly the need for primary elections for political candidates and more opportunities for direct democracy. Whatever the other flaws of US democracy, at least there voters have the right to directly choose their head of state. Registered voters can also participate in primaries to select their party political candidate for a particular election. It’s a far cry from the branch stacking and backroom machinations so favoured by the New South Wales Labor Party.
Focusing on “legitimacy”, whatever that is, would be a mistake for either party. The voters will have moved on – especially if an early election is called.
Perhaps that was Brown’s problem – he couldn’t call an early election.
Focusing on “legitimacy”, whatever that is, would be a mistake for either party. The voters will have moved on – especially if an early election is called.
Perhaps that was Brown’s problem – he couldn’t call an early election.
I would like to see our house of legislative review (senate) altered so that it’s members (senators) are appointed by sortition rather than by election. The senate would the behave more like a jury of peers sitting in judgement of proposed legislation rather than being a bunck of party loyal populist politicians eager to get their mug on TV and to say something popular. Senators appointed by sortition would be far more representative of the broader community with minority groups represented more in alignment with their prevalence in the Australian community.
How would sortition work? There are several ways it could work but here is my prefered scenario. To be a candidate you need to be eligible to vote and you would need to gather 100 signatures from other citizens that support your application. You would the be registered and give a unique number. Every month the AEC would select a number at random and the associated candidate would become a senator with a term of 100 months. Senators would get paid on the basis of attendance.
Some people find the idea of appointing representatives by lotto a little troubling. However it makes for a far more representative body. It also removes populist incentives. Senators would vote how we the people would vote if we were well informed rather than taking positions to impress the uninformed masses.
I’d keep the lower house and executive branch elected.
I would like to see our house of legislative review (senate) altered so that it’s members (senators) are appointed by sortition rather than by election. The senate would the behave more like a jury of peers sitting in judgement of proposed legislation rather than being a bunck of party loyal populist politicians eager to get their mug on TV and to say something popular. Senators appointed by sortition would be far more representative of the broader community with minority groups represented more in alignment with their prevalence in the Australian community.
How would sortition work? There are several ways it could work but here is my prefered scenario. To be a candidate you need to be eligible to vote and you would need to gather 100 signatures from other citizens that support your application. You would the be registered and give a unique number. Every month the AEC would select a number at random and the associated candidate would become a senator with a term of 100 months. Senators would get paid on the basis of attendance.
Some people find the idea of appointing representatives by lotto a little troubling. However it makes for a far more representative body. It also removes populist incentives. Senators would vote how we the people would vote if we were well informed rather than taking positions to impress the uninformed masses.
I’d keep the lower house and executive branch elected.
I’ve been thinking about this a bit since you’ve been posting on it, Mark.
The points you (and Ben) make about the mode of engagement between the public and the political sphere are very well made. Nonetheless I can’t accept that increased authority for the leader is a more democratic outcome. Indeed Rudd, as the person who did more to centralise authority within the party than any other (at least for a long time) was hardly democratic in this regard. On a formal level assertion of control of the leadership by the party room was a democratic outcome.
Of course the problem is that in this case – as in Abbott’s overthrow of Turnbull – there was far more than just the formalities involved. Instead there was the corrosive influence of various party machines, which are themselves highly manipulative and undemocratic.
For me the main issue is to focus not on the legitimacy of the person of the leader but rather on the legitimacy of the electoral program. Labor and Rudd were elected on a promise of repealing workchoices, acting on climate change, restoring human dignity to the processes of border security etc etc (etc including fiscal conservatism of course!).
How are these policy goals best to be preserved and promoted through the processes of government? Surely the solutions have to involve some form of distributed responsibility within the party and the electorate and away from either the PMs office or Sussex St. Yearning for the (possibly illusory) days when policy formation within the branches meant something obviously isn’t going to do, and maybe the fast-and-shallow nature of the news cycle means that this can never truly happen. I don’t know.
I’ve been thinking about this a bit since you’ve been posting on it, Mark.
The points you (and Ben) make about the mode of engagement between the public and the political sphere are very well made. Nonetheless I can’t accept that increased authority for the leader is a more democratic outcome. Indeed Rudd, as the person who did more to centralise authority within the party than any other (at least for a long time) was hardly democratic in this regard. On a formal level assertion of control of the leadership by the party room was a democratic outcome.
Of course the problem is that in this case – as in Abbott’s overthrow of Turnbull – there was far more than just the formalities involved. Instead there was the corrosive influence of various party machines, which are themselves highly manipulative and undemocratic.
For me the main issue is to focus not on the legitimacy of the person of the leader but rather on the legitimacy of the electoral program. Labor and Rudd were elected on a promise of repealing workchoices, acting on climate change, restoring human dignity to the processes of border security etc etc (etc including fiscal conservatism of course!).
How are these policy goals best to be preserved and promoted through the processes of government? Surely the solutions have to involve some form of distributed responsibility within the party and the electorate and away from either the PMs office or Sussex St. Yearning for the (possibly illusory) days when policy formation within the branches meant something obviously isn’t going to do, and maybe the fast-and-shallow nature of the news cycle means that this can never truly happen. I don’t know.
Mark
1/ 2007 election was won on Workchoises (with many other issues then following far behind) in changing decsive swing votes
Polling showed even when Beasely was Opposition Leader that this was deel breaker FOR Labor , and Kim may indeed hav won What Kevin07 provided was a guaranteed Labor victory
But clearly polls showed Labor Party brand of anti Workchoises ( and not Kevin07 himself) , set up initially by Unions anti Workchoises adds , was who people were voting for , ie gut Workchoises , so we in disagreement there….but again I am certain not reducing my thanks for Kevin07 in ensuring that Labor Party victory thu a fine campaign
2/ I do FULLY agree with your view of Primary’s by Partys for candidates being needed , which wuld improve our Democracy no end How one converts this desiable principal to practice without attracting th MANY and worst features of USA style Primarys may need some thoughts
3/ Change method of selecting a PM
I do not agree with you and quote from your Article
“You can of course quibble with my analysis by pointing to Australia’s Westminster tradition, in which the convention holds that Prime Minister must enjoy the support of a majority of the Parliament. On this measure, Julia Gillard clearly has a constitutional right to hold office.”
I feel this says it all
It is ALSO why having a President under a new oz “Republic” directly voted is also undesirable , clashing with Govt of th day as to who had a “mandate” And effectively you ar advocating a USA style separate election of Party Leadrs for “President” (cum “PM”)
Our Westminister System is i feel more democratic and with a long history to show it
Whilst you and I disagree with Rudd/Gillard changeover , reasons , which has led you to your proposal ,I’d suggest your point 2/ proposal of Primarys (if in practice USA problems cn be avoided) would largely address your direct election PM view…whilst still maintaining our excelelent Westminite system with its Cabinet ex elected MP’s and Govt being Party with majority on HoR , etc
Mark
1/ 2007 election was won on Workchoises (with many other issues then following far behind) in changing decsive swing votes
Polling showed even when Beasely was Opposition Leader that this was deel breaker FOR Labor , and Kim may indeed hav won What Kevin07 provided was a guaranteed Labor victory
But clearly polls showed Labor Party brand of anti Workchoises ( and not Kevin07 himself) , set up initially by Unions anti Workchoises adds , was who people were voting for , ie gut Workchoises , so we in disagreement there….but again I am certain not reducing my thanks for Kevin07 in ensuring that Labor Party victory thu a fine campaign
2/ I do FULLY agree with your view of Primary’s by Partys for candidates being needed , which wuld improve our Democracy no end How one converts this desiable principal to practice without attracting th MANY and worst features of USA style Primarys may need some thoughts
3/ Change method of selecting a PM
I do not agree with you and quote from your Article
“You can of course quibble with my analysis by pointing to Australia’s Westminster tradition, in which the convention holds that Prime Minister must enjoy the support of a majority of the Parliament. On this measure, Julia Gillard clearly has a constitutional right to hold office.”
I feel this says it all
It is ALSO why having a President under a new oz “Republic” directly voted is also undesirable , clashing with Govt of th day as to who had a “mandate” And effectively you ar advocating a USA style separate election of Party Leadrs for “President” (cum “PM”)
Our Westminister System is i feel more democratic and with a long history to show it
Whilst you and I disagree with Rudd/Gillard changeover , reasons , which has led you to your proposal ,I’d suggest your point 2/ proposal of Primarys (if in practice USA problems cn be avoided) would largely address your direct election PM view…whilst still maintaining our excelelent Westminite system with its Cabinet ex elected MP’s and Govt being Party with majority on HoR , etc
@3 – Martin, a thoughtful comment.
I intend to return and respond to serious discussion, or such serious discussion as this thread produces, later on, rather than commenting as the debate proceeds.
@3 – Martin, a thoughtful comment.
I intend to return and respond to serious discussion, or such serious discussion as this thread produces, later on, rather than commenting as the debate proceeds.
Mark, you only have to wait 8 weeks for the imprimatur of the people, one way or the other. I understand your ‘slippery slope’ analogy but it is tired and a lost cause. Enjoy Julia and watch her campaign. She will be fun.
Is it not also possible that Gillard will be deeper thinking as PM – what will she bring in a new term to national identity that moves beyond Howardism and Keating’s-world-view. Renewal takes many forms and we might be seeing something substantial, you just never know.
I’ve had many disagreements with Gillard’s policies, but she will be positioned for a national coversation and long stay in the top job. I’d be surprised if she wasn’t contesting in 2016 … she’s Labor’s most substantial figure since Keating and I guess we’ll see what she does with it.
Leaders emerge in the job but they have to show leadership signs in their careers. She has.
Mark, you only have to wait 8 weeks for the imprimatur of the people, one way or the other. I understand your ‘slippery slope’ analogy but it is tired and a lost cause. Enjoy Julia and watch her campaign. She will be fun.
Is it not also possible that Gillard will be deeper thinking as PM – what will she bring in a new term to national identity that moves beyond Howardism and Keating’s-world-view. Renewal takes many forms and we might be seeing something substantial, you just never know.
I’ve had many disagreements with Gillard’s policies, but she will be positioned for a national coversation and long stay in the top job. I’d be surprised if she wasn’t contesting in 2016 … she’s Labor’s most substantial figure since Keating and I guess we’ll see what she does with it.
Leaders emerge in the job but they have to show leadership signs in their careers. She has.
I seem o recall very vividly the endless arguments ,in the media about taking the Presidential road. I t was around the time Hawke walked amongst the shelves and kissed the product ranges.Ever since then the Presidential pimple is squeezed via the hand whilst, only of recent times a contract needed a signature.So!To avoid the ramifications of dealing with the Corporate State registered as a Business, the idea of being a little U.S.A. and thus protecting the political flank on the right hand side has undergone surgery.KorniKova as a slightly upturned mouth as spice girl types, was the same ginger protection racket that has grown into the required do the opposite of everything you claimed you stood for.As a Downunder reflection of the U.S.A.U.K. where in ,say, the U.S.A. court cases have riled a many with the power of the non-Constitutional word STANDING.This enlarges anyone who is even a Candidate from a worthy action against such individuals as an impossibility.So as the Australian Governance wants to be so like the U.S.A.that speaking and rubbing your backside so there are no creases in said tidy land, means that what is in fact, a corrupt attitude, never gets the light of day.We have musical chairs if say, some anger appears from the Billionaire Gods and their servants.Who are competing with the Government desire.So I say, the Gillard takeover, isn’t just a political process within the Party, but the shallow side of life that is impressed by imagery rather than detail.The smart arse comment that means very little.Promise the World and deliver very little.Wankers in the Advertising business winning Queen’s Birthday Awards reflect the barrier undercurrent that disallows the possibility of actually anything but Press Presidential ,and the soaring arseology that finally stands taller than an erect Homo Sapien.The lack of shame about having been in Iraq and killed, in Afghanistan and killing,being part of the Empire and loving it will not be replaced.Instead.We the bored shitless,will have to pick up their rubbish.If you don’t pay attention to these camera Booties than they punish you,after all being reel, real and real as in gold of such means exclusion by inclusion.Cannot be sucked in,than be spat out,by foxes in the hen house.So again, we can see two distinct stereo types in Gillard and Abbott,and who in their right mind needs either!? That is the way we got the country started .Fiddling around with keys in the dark,whilst Generic Branding becomes individual products via the usage of the word authentic. The abuse of the individuals by these clowns in the various Corporate Lands, cannot be even laughed off.They will, as always, steal the shirt off your back, by various means.
I seem o recall very vividly the endless arguments ,in the media about taking the Presidential road. I t was around the time Hawke walked amongst the shelves and kissed the product ranges.Ever since then the Presidential pimple is squeezed via the hand whilst, only of recent times a contract needed a signature.So!To avoid the ramifications of dealing with the Corporate State registered as a Business, the idea of being a little U.S.A. and thus protecting the political flank on the right hand side has undergone surgery.KorniKova as a slightly upturned mouth as spice girl types, was the same ginger protection racket that has grown into the required do the opposite of everything you claimed you stood for.As a Downunder reflection of the U.S.A.U.K. where in ,say, the U.S.A. court cases have riled a many with the power of the non-Constitutional word STANDING.This enlarges anyone who is even a Candidate from a worthy action against such individuals as an impossibility.So as the Australian Governance wants to be so like the U.S.A.that speaking and rubbing your backside so there are no creases in said tidy land, means that what is in fact, a corrupt attitude, never gets the light of day.We have musical chairs if say, some anger appears from the Billionaire Gods and their servants.Who are competing with the Government desire.So I say, the Gillard takeover, isn’t just a political process within the Party, but the shallow side of life that is impressed by imagery rather than detail.The smart arse comment that means very little.Promise the World and deliver very little.Wankers in the Advertising business winning Queen’s Birthday Awards reflect the barrier undercurrent that disallows the possibility of actually anything but Press Presidential ,and the soaring arseology that finally stands taller than an erect Homo Sapien.The lack of shame about having been in Iraq and killed, in Afghanistan and killing,being part of the Empire and loving it will not be replaced.Instead.We the bored shitless,will have to pick up their rubbish.If you don’t pay attention to these camera Booties than they punish you,after all being reel, real and real as in gold of such means exclusion by inclusion.Cannot be sucked in,than be spat out,by foxes in the hen house.So again, we can see two distinct stereo types in Gillard and Abbott,and who in their right mind needs either!? That is the way we got the country started .Fiddling around with keys in the dark,whilst Generic Branding becomes individual products via the usage of the word authentic. The abuse of the individuals by these clowns in the various Corporate Lands, cannot be even laughed off.They will, as always, steal the shirt off your back, by various means.
Oh dear.
Define “major”, in the context of “major parties”. Those capable of forming Government? So, that includes the Nationals and the Greens (see WA and Tasmania)?
As regards primaries, if you mean primaries by which all party members get to vote on who their candidate should be, then sure, I agree (and I have this already in my party). If you mean open primaries, then I do not think you have thought this through. There are two primary reasons why a person joins a political party (over and above identification with the understood aims of that party). To influence policy, and to pick candidates. Imagine an open primary in, say, Western Metropolitan. Tell me why Labor would not – indeed, should not – aim to influence their membership/supporter base to preselect a Green or a Liberal who would be perhaps more sympathetic to Labor aims than Green or Liberal ones?
Oh dear.
Define “major”, in the context of “major parties”. Those capable of forming Government? So, that includes the Nationals and the Greens (see WA and Tasmania)?
As regards primaries, if you mean primaries by which all party members get to vote on who their candidate should be, then sure, I agree (and I have this already in my party). If you mean open primaries, then I do not think you have thought this through. There are two primary reasons why a person joins a political party (over and above identification with the understood aims of that party). To influence policy, and to pick candidates. Imagine an open primary in, say, Western Metropolitan. Tell me why Labor would not – indeed, should not – aim to influence their membership/supporter base to preselect a Green or a Liberal who would be perhaps more sympathetic to Labor aims than Green or Liberal ones?
Martin B – I very much agree with your outlook on this matter. The ALP was in my book right to ditch Rudd. However you left out the fact that tax cuts, both of the immediate variety, and the longer term aspirational variety were a centre piece of the ALP platform in 2007. In fact I think it was the first time in all the Howard years that the ALP proposed reductions in income taxes so it was a significant thing. They have delivered to date on the income tax cuts but their spending indicates that they have broken faith with the whole fiscal conservatism vibe.
Martin B – I very much agree with your outlook on this matter. The ALP was in my book right to ditch Rudd. However you left out the fact that tax cuts, both of the immediate variety, and the longer term aspirational variety were a centre piece of the ALP platform in 2007. In fact I think it was the first time in all the Howard years that the ALP proposed reductions in income taxes so it was a significant thing. They have delivered to date on the income tax cuts but their spending indicates that they have broken faith with the whole fiscal conservatism vibe.
Alister, open primaries are clearly better than closed, as the party membership has little breadth. Surely change should be about making politics more active not more closed. It should also be about ‘soccer mums’ as well as activists. I have to say I do disagree with leadership votes by primaries but I am all for candidate level primaries, probably for 65% of winnable seats. If I had to choose though between primaries (including leadership by it) and none, I would probably err on he side of change. The fault though with leadership ballots of members is that it take 8 weeks to do!
Alister, open primaries are clearly better than closed, as the party membership has little breadth. Surely change should be about making politics more active not more closed. It should also be about ‘soccer mums’ as well as activists. I have to say I do disagree with leadership votes by primaries but I am all for candidate level primaries, probably for 65% of winnable seats. If I had to choose though between primaries (including leadership by it) and none, I would probably err on he side of change. The fault though with leadership ballots of members is that it take 8 weeks to do!
I agree absolutely with the general gist of your argument Mark, but I also think the concept of introducing leadership primaries is a little on the fanciful side. As the recent Gillard coup has proven, we may well have a parliamentary democracy in this country, but the Labor and Liberal Parties (e.g. those enjoying a clear majority of support in the electorate) are thoroughly oligarchical. The oligarchy which installed Julia Gillard is hardly likely to support a delegation of its power to the rank and file.
Is a democracy dominated by two sprawling, generally undemocratic oligarchies really much of a democracy?
It would be nice to see the Gillard Government take a progressive line on constitutional issues and the reform of our democracy. I’d love to see the AEC granted additional powers and greater funding so that it better able to promote democracy and transparency within our political system, and within Australia’s major parties in particular. Here’s hoping that happens. I’m not holding my breath though, given the rather shameless method of Gillard’s installation and the pressure she is now on to focus on the meat and vege of government heading into an election.
I agree absolutely with the general gist of your argument Mark, but I also think the concept of introducing leadership primaries is a little on the fanciful side. As the recent Gillard coup has proven, we may well have a parliamentary democracy in this country, but the Labor and Liberal Parties (e.g. those enjoying a clear majority of support in the electorate) are thoroughly oligarchical. The oligarchy which installed Julia Gillard is hardly likely to support a delegation of its power to the rank and file.
Is a democracy dominated by two sprawling, generally undemocratic oligarchies really much of a democracy?
It would be nice to see the Gillard Government take a progressive line on constitutional issues and the reform of our democracy. I’d love to see the AEC granted additional powers and greater funding so that it better able to promote democracy and transparency within our political system, and within Australia’s major parties in particular. Here’s hoping that happens. I’m not holding my breath though, given the rather shameless method of Gillard’s installation and the pressure she is now on to focus on the meat and vege of government heading into an election.
Mark
I think you and Ben have rightly identified the tension within the current body politic. On the one hand we have a Westminster system where in theory, legitimacy comes from the ability of a PM and a party/coalition to command a majority/the confidence of the lower house. On the other, over the past few decades we have seen an inexorable increase in central control – not just within the PMO and campaigning, but also the balance between the federal government and the states. In a sense, our system has evolved into something quasi-presidential with PMs behaving like presidents but without the same constitutional status.
But it isn’t a straightforward tension to deal with. Broadly I think primaries are a good idea, but the voting pool has to be large enough to prevent manipulation, whether it be by factions or opposing parties. One thing you want to encourage is people being able to register as supporters of one of the parties, and hence able to vote in the primary, without having to be member/activist of the party as such.
A broader franchise for voting for the leader also carries problems. While it might confer more legitimacy on that leader it could push the role of PM even closer toward something more presidential and make it even more difficult to remove that leader during difficult times.
So, I agree that there is a democratic deficit within the current system, but I’m not sure this can be overturned without a broader rethinking of all of our political institutions. Reforms like primaries would probably be of some benefit, but only partially address the concerns that you and others have raised elsewhere.
Reflecting on the recent events, I’m not sure a vote amongst the membership would have made a whole lot of difference. For a start, the control of factions extends deeply into the membership though branch stacking and the like. You might likely have had the same outcome, though perhaps the spectacle of organising such an election would have been disincentive enough to bring one on. More interestingly, Rudd would never have become leader in the first place. It is most unlikely that Beazley would have lost to Rudd in an open ballot of party members back in 2006. Actually, thinking about it, a more democratic process would have protected the leader and reduced the probability of winning the last election. So, there is potentially a tension there too.
Mark
I think you and Ben have rightly identified the tension within the current body politic. On the one hand we have a Westminster system where in theory, legitimacy comes from the ability of a PM and a party/coalition to command a majority/the confidence of the lower house. On the other, over the past few decades we have seen an inexorable increase in central control – not just within the PMO and campaigning, but also the balance between the federal government and the states. In a sense, our system has evolved into something quasi-presidential with PMs behaving like presidents but without the same constitutional status.
But it isn’t a straightforward tension to deal with. Broadly I think primaries are a good idea, but the voting pool has to be large enough to prevent manipulation, whether it be by factions or opposing parties. One thing you want to encourage is people being able to register as supporters of one of the parties, and hence able to vote in the primary, without having to be member/activist of the party as such.
A broader franchise for voting for the leader also carries problems. While it might confer more legitimacy on that leader it could push the role of PM even closer toward something more presidential and make it even more difficult to remove that leader during difficult times.
So, I agree that there is a democratic deficit within the current system, but I’m not sure this can be overturned without a broader rethinking of all of our political institutions. Reforms like primaries would probably be of some benefit, but only partially address the concerns that you and others have raised elsewhere.
Reflecting on the recent events, I’m not sure a vote amongst the membership would have made a whole lot of difference. For a start, the control of factions extends deeply into the membership though branch stacking and the like. You might likely have had the same outcome, though perhaps the spectacle of organising such an election would have been disincentive enough to bring one on. More interestingly, Rudd would never have become leader in the first place. It is most unlikely that Beazley would have lost to Rudd in an open ballot of party members back in 2006. Actually, thinking about it, a more democratic process would have protected the leader and reduced the probability of winning the last election. So, there is potentially a tension there too.
Mark, reffering to your earlier post if everone moves on from that debate, for the record: http://larvatusprodeo.net/2010/06/17/quick-link-why-dumping-rudd-would-be-dumb/
I think you have inferred that dumping Rudd would be/is electorally the wrong thing to do. I just don’t see why you don’t admit it. I’m wrong sometimes and often I admit it.
I agree there are other reasons to resist leadership, but general goodwill for the Govt is not among them I don’t think.
Mark, reffering to your earlier post if everone moves on from that debate, for the record: http://larvatusprodeo.net/2010/06/17/quick-link-why-dumping-rudd-would-be-dumb/
I think you have inferred that dumping Rudd would be/is electorally the wrong thing to do. I just don’t see why you don’t admit it. I’m wrong sometimes and often I admit it.
I agree there are other reasons to resist leadership, but general goodwill for the Govt is not among them I don’t think.
@11 – Just quickly, that’s a links post directing people to an article arguing that dumping Kevin Rudd would be dumb by Peter Brent. I don’t make any case in that post, nor any argument. Links do not always necessarily imply endorsement.
I think you frequently attribute sentiments to me, Corin, that don’t follow from, or can’t be sustained on the basis of what I actually write. It’s the obverse to your constant calls for me to agree with you, which appear to me to suggest that your own opinion is self-evident and should be held by all right thinking people.
Ok, I just wanted to dispose of that. I hope everyone stays on topic now.
@11 – Just quickly, that’s a links post directing people to an article arguing that dumping Kevin Rudd would be dumb by Peter Brent. I don’t make any case in that post, nor any argument. Links do not always necessarily imply endorsement.
I think you frequently attribute sentiments to me, Corin, that don’t follow from, or can’t be sustained on the basis of what I actually write. It’s the obverse to your constant calls for me to agree with you, which appear to me to suggest that your own opinion is self-evident and should be held by all right thinking people.
Ok, I just wanted to dispose of that. I hope everyone stays on topic now.
@10 – again, just a quick point of clarification:
Yes, I agree, LO, and that’s what I understand Labor to have done in Victoria. That’s what I’d like to see, or something akin to it.
Also, on your last point, Tony Blair became PM with overwhelming support from the members’ component of the electoral college despite being a non-traditional candidate who probably would not have been the first pick of MPs had the previous election by caucus method been in place. I think in debating this we have to take into account that an electoral college system, in the UK, involved raising the number of party members by a large factor, and short-circuited the influence of various party and union bosses. If the mode of selecting candidates and leaders changed, the incentives to become a party member or register as a supporter would also shift, and all this would affect the dynamics and nature of power structures within the party.
@10 – again, just a quick point of clarification:
Yes, I agree, LO, and that’s what I understand Labor to have done in Victoria. That’s what I’d like to see, or something akin to it.
Also, on your last point, Tony Blair became PM with overwhelming support from the members’ component of the electoral college despite being a non-traditional candidate who probably would not have been the first pick of MPs had the previous election by caucus method been in place. I think in debating this we have to take into account that an electoral college system, in the UK, involved raising the number of party members by a large factor, and short-circuited the influence of various party and union bosses. If the mode of selecting candidates and leaders changed, the incentives to become a party member or register as a supporter would also shift, and all this would affect the dynamics and nature of power structures within the party.
I think there’s a much bigger problem here, and that’s how utterly unengaged and apolitical the Australian public is.
Here’s a thought: by some estimates, the combined membership of the Hawthorn and Collingwood football clubs is higher than the combined membership nationally of both the ALP and the Liberal Party. The membership of the Hawthorn Football Club is higher than the combined Victorian membership of both the Liberal Party and the ALP. When the average punter is more likely to have a membership card for one of the more popular AFL clubs than a political party, you can tell we have a problem!
The other thing that people on LP need to understand is that – by virtue of reading this very post on a political blog – you’re arguably more politically engaged than 99% of the Australian population. The reality is that the overwhelming majority of Australians, if they watch the news, watch one of the commercial TV broadcasters, if they read a newspaper read a daily Murdoch prolefeed tabloid, and either listen to the hourly news bulletins on commercial music radio or listen to commercial talkback.
The fact is that Australians who bother with a broadsheet (be it a Fairfax or the Oz), SBS, or the ABC are in the minority. And when you’re talking about a political blog, or something like the Monthly or Quarterly Essay, you’re talking about an almost statistically insignificant section of society.
And the version that they get is the one sentence or less, 6 second soundbite version of politics. Rather than having a broad battle of liberalism versus social democracy, we have a personality driven politics. Tony says this and Julia says that. The red team and the blue team – or the red leader against the blue leader – whoever gets the wittiest line wins. A version of politics where complex tax policy or complex policy like an Emissions Trading Scheme can be reduced down to “A big new tax.” A world where opinion polls commissioned as basically a running scoreboard on the wittiest one-liner competition matters more than whether legislation and policy in practice benefits citizens.
And the result of this mediated ‘wittiest one liner competition’ view of politics is that it’s something remote and at most an interesting distraction to most people. The witty one liner competition is something irrelevant to people’s daily lives. It’s irrelevant to the ammount of traffic on the highway or the quality of their local school or hospital. It’s something most people feel they have little real hope of personally influencing in any meaningful way.
And the problem with having political parties so small is this: it’s easier to stack a branch of 10 members than a branch of 100. It’s easier to stack a branch of 100 members than of 1,000. It’s easier and far cheaper to stack a branch of 1,000 than a branch of 10,000.
So you get factional hacks, plants, and powerbrokers. A system of political patronage which is utterly disconnected from the views and concerns of most everyday people.
This is instead of having a broad based Labor party of, by and for the Laboring and underclasses against a broad based Liberal party of, by, and for the middle class, we end up with the mess we get.
Now, if people were engaging in other forms in some form of Tocquevillian democracy, it would be a different matter. But trade unions are shrinking. Grassroots community groups are shrinking. Mainline Christian churches are shrinking. May day rallies and political protests are shrinking.
So what’s the solution? That’s tricky. My gut response is to delegate power, to build political parties at the grassroots level, to build strong third parties. To make Civic, Legal, and Political Studies into a compulsory primary and secondary subject from Prep to Year 12.
And yes, there is room to make our parliamentary systems more representative. More multi-member electorates perhaps? Citizen Initiated Referenda? More direct election of political officials?
But ultimately, any Parliamentary reforms will count for little in such an apathetic electorate.
I think there’s a much bigger problem here, and that’s how utterly unengaged and apolitical the Australian public is.
Here’s a thought: by some estimates, the combined membership of the Hawthorn and Collingwood football clubs is higher than the combined membership nationally of both the ALP and the Liberal Party. The membership of the Hawthorn Football Club is higher than the combined Victorian membership of both the Liberal Party and the ALP. When the average punter is more likely to have a membership card for one of the more popular AFL clubs than a political party, you can tell we have a problem!
The other thing that people on LP need to understand is that – by virtue of reading this very post on a political blog – you’re arguably more politically engaged than 99% of the Australian population. The reality is that the overwhelming majority of Australians, if they watch the news, watch one of the commercial TV broadcasters, if they read a newspaper read a daily Murdoch prolefeed tabloid, and either listen to the hourly news bulletins on commercial music radio or listen to commercial talkback.
The fact is that Australians who bother with a broadsheet (be it a Fairfax or the Oz), SBS, or the ABC are in the minority. And when you’re talking about a political blog, or something like the Monthly or Quarterly Essay, you’re talking about an almost statistically insignificant section of society.
And the version that they get is the one sentence or less, 6 second soundbite version of politics. Rather than having a broad battle of liberalism versus social democracy, we have a personality driven politics. Tony says this and Julia says that. The red team and the blue team – or the red leader against the blue leader – whoever gets the wittiest line wins. A version of politics where complex tax policy or complex policy like an Emissions Trading Scheme can be reduced down to “A big new tax.” A world where opinion polls commissioned as basically a running scoreboard on the wittiest one-liner competition matters more than whether legislation and policy in practice benefits citizens.
And the result of this mediated ‘wittiest one liner competition’ view of politics is that it’s something remote and at most an interesting distraction to most people. The witty one liner competition is something irrelevant to people’s daily lives. It’s irrelevant to the ammount of traffic on the highway or the quality of their local school or hospital. It’s something most people feel they have little real hope of personally influencing in any meaningful way.
And the problem with having political parties so small is this: it’s easier to stack a branch of 10 members than a branch of 100. It’s easier to stack a branch of 100 members than of 1,000. It’s easier and far cheaper to stack a branch of 1,000 than a branch of 10,000.
So you get factional hacks, plants, and powerbrokers. A system of political patronage which is utterly disconnected from the views and concerns of most everyday people.
This is instead of having a broad based Labor party of, by and for the Laboring and underclasses against a broad based Liberal party of, by, and for the middle class, we end up with the mess we get.
Now, if people were engaging in other forms in some form of Tocquevillian democracy, it would be a different matter. But trade unions are shrinking. Grassroots community groups are shrinking. Mainline Christian churches are shrinking. May day rallies and political protests are shrinking.
So what’s the solution? That’s tricky. My gut response is to delegate power, to build political parties at the grassroots level, to build strong third parties. To make Civic, Legal, and Political Studies into a compulsory primary and secondary subject from Prep to Year 12.
And yes, there is room to make our parliamentary systems more representative. More multi-member electorates perhaps? Citizen Initiated Referenda? More direct election of political officials?
But ultimately, any Parliamentary reforms will count for little in such an apathetic electorate.
Mark, I think it’s worthwhile to look at all this, although my position is similar to Martin’s and Corin’s.
The public were kept out of the loop, true, but these matters are always decided within parties and voters have long lived with that system. Whether it can be improved is another thing, but there are no serious parallels with The Dismissal. There you had a serious breach of the known constitutional powers (i.e. that the Prime Minister is decided on the floor of the House of Representatives). That they were legal at all can only be rationalised because the Reserve Powers of the Monarch (Governor-General) are vague and undefined.
I realize that you’re correct in the respect that the primary focus of the entire campaign was indeed Kevin07. That is done for image and simplification, and to personalise something that would otherwise be abstract and a bit dull. And of course it is creeping closer to presidential campaigns. That has indeed allowed the Leader a great deal more power, even over the course of the campaign. Policies and promises can be made on the run without consulting the rest of the front bench. In fact that led to some problems with Latham not so long ago.
Although a mandate can be claimed from a successful campaign, just because Kevin07 was a brilliant campaign does not of itself change the constitutional and power relationships. That is, it should not confer any additional powers on the Leader. He will, of course have plenty of, even most, authority but it is not entirely ceded to him. Checks and balances and all that.
The worlds of Canberra and the rest of Australia often seem to function separately from each other (may be a good topic for another post). Labor Outsider has been telling us that things in Canberra have been crook for some time. More recently Corin has reinforced that view. Basically it has centered around Rudd’s inability or unwillingness to delegate while working himself and anyone near him at a frantic pace. Relationships with the ministry, caucus and the public service have apparently ranged from difficult (always an issue of some sort at this level, I guess) to dysfunctional. Some of these points are slowly emerging now.
The Gallery (I ignore Shanahan and News Ltd in this) had picked up on some of this uneasiness but not the extent of it. Most of us chose to ignore that on the grounds that they were talking among themselves and ‘making the news’ so to speak. Indeed, the credibility gap between the two major parties was such as to encourage us in this view. How could Abbott’s lot even be in the race?
But there had been enough stumbles in the past 6 months to make a lot of caucus, especially those in less safe seats decidedly nervous. While Rudd’s huge popularity held up nobody dared move. And you have to say that discipline held up pretty well. The only story remotely related to such problems was Rudd’s wobbly on the plane, but it was trivial enough not to count. But once polls went sour it bubbled over. Then the question of power sharing become important.
The decision to act then was not just panic about survival. Unless something was done quickly the ministry and caucus would be stuck with prime ministerial fiat. A win, which was still likely with Rudd even if there were some uncertainties, would almost be default guarantee continuance of that style. How could you dump him or even wind back his powers after he’d just taken you to a second win?
I don’t see all that’s happened as payback from the faction bosses. I think they, too, were uneasy and were mainly involved in getting the numbers and in getting Gillard to run.
The tragedy is that Rudd had great ideas and was determined to make Australia a better place, but his management style of frantic despotism would not have done it.
Mark, I think it’s worthwhile to look at all this, although my position is similar to Martin’s and Corin’s.
The public were kept out of the loop, true, but these matters are always decided within parties and voters have long lived with that system. Whether it can be improved is another thing, but there are no serious parallels with The Dismissal. There you had a serious breach of the known constitutional powers (i.e. that the Prime Minister is decided on the floor of the House of Representatives). That they were legal at all can only be rationalised because the Reserve Powers of the Monarch (Governor-General) are vague and undefined.
I realize that you’re correct in the respect that the primary focus of the entire campaign was indeed Kevin07. That is done for image and simplification, and to personalise something that would otherwise be abstract and a bit dull. And of course it is creeping closer to presidential campaigns. That has indeed allowed the Leader a great deal more power, even over the course of the campaign. Policies and promises can be made on the run without consulting the rest of the front bench. In fact that led to some problems with Latham not so long ago.
Although a mandate can be claimed from a successful campaign, just because Kevin07 was a brilliant campaign does not of itself change the constitutional and power relationships. That is, it should not confer any additional powers on the Leader. He will, of course have plenty of, even most, authority but it is not entirely ceded to him. Checks and balances and all that.
The worlds of Canberra and the rest of Australia often seem to function separately from each other (may be a good topic for another post). Labor Outsider has been telling us that things in Canberra have been crook for some time. More recently Corin has reinforced that view. Basically it has centered around Rudd’s inability or unwillingness to delegate while working himself and anyone near him at a frantic pace. Relationships with the ministry, caucus and the public service have apparently ranged from difficult (always an issue of some sort at this level, I guess) to dysfunctional. Some of these points are slowly emerging now.
The Gallery (I ignore Shanahan and News Ltd in this) had picked up on some of this uneasiness but not the extent of it. Most of us chose to ignore that on the grounds that they were talking among themselves and ‘making the news’ so to speak. Indeed, the credibility gap between the two major parties was such as to encourage us in this view. How could Abbott’s lot even be in the race?
But there had been enough stumbles in the past 6 months to make a lot of caucus, especially those in less safe seats decidedly nervous. While Rudd’s huge popularity held up nobody dared move. And you have to say that discipline held up pretty well. The only story remotely related to such problems was Rudd’s wobbly on the plane, but it was trivial enough not to count. But once polls went sour it bubbled over. Then the question of power sharing become important.
The decision to act then was not just panic about survival. Unless something was done quickly the ministry and caucus would be stuck with prime ministerial fiat. A win, which was still likely with Rudd even if there were some uncertainties, would almost be default guarantee continuance of that style. How could you dump him or even wind back his powers after he’d just taken you to a second win?
I don’t see all that’s happened as payback from the faction bosses. I think they, too, were uneasy and were mainly involved in getting the numbers and in getting Gillard to run.
The tragedy is that Rudd had great ideas and was determined to make Australia a better place, but his management style of frantic despotism would not have done it.
Our experiences with the politics of the local P&C suggest to me that people, in the main, have forgotten how to be civil, how to achieve compromise and even how to follow rules.
This environment is not conducive to the orderly organisation of political parties – they have trouble organising a cake sale here without it breaking down into a finger pointing match, the local council is a disfunctional, lurching and corrupted body.
We see our hopes and fears marketed back to us by political advertising and half hope that something will be done, only for compromise at the highest levels of government fall to the same petty bickering or outright corruption. It’s the local council and the local P&C write large. If we can’t trust the institutions, the leaders don’t really matter much.
Our experiences with the politics of the local P&C suggest to me that people, in the main, have forgotten how to be civil, how to achieve compromise and even how to follow rules.
This environment is not conducive to the orderly organisation of political parties – they have trouble organising a cake sale here without it breaking down into a finger pointing match, the local council is a disfunctional, lurching and corrupted body.
We see our hopes and fears marketed back to us by political advertising and half hope that something will be done, only for compromise at the highest levels of government fall to the same petty bickering or outright corruption. It’s the local council and the local P&C write large. If we can’t trust the institutions, the leaders don’t really matter much.
The other problem is that we’re effectively trying to square the circle and have a Presidential leader in a representative parliamentary democracy. Again, having a strong leader and a weak leader and disunity is death is great for the ‘battle of the one-liners’ the media love. It allows for the ‘gotcha politics’ of anyone from a party departing from the six second soundbite de jour and the petty naval gazing of how many beers a Prime Minister shouts being the issue of the day, rather than policy.
Now, if we think that having a Presidential system is worthwhile then let’s have a Presidency which controls the executive branch of Government. And if we want a representative democracy, then let our representatives be representatives with views different from the party line, elected by local branches and local parties!
The other problem is that we’re effectively trying to square the circle and have a Presidential leader in a representative parliamentary democracy. Again, having a strong leader and a weak leader and disunity is death is great for the ‘battle of the one-liners’ the media love. It allows for the ‘gotcha politics’ of anyone from a party departing from the six second soundbite de jour and the petty naval gazing of how many beers a Prime Minister shouts being the issue of the day, rather than policy.
Now, if we think that having a Presidential system is worthwhile then let’s have a Presidency which controls the executive branch of Government. And if we want a representative democracy, then let our representatives be representatives with views different from the party line, elected by local branches and local parties!
As a Labor supporter, I’d worry about a situation similar to that faced by the Australian Democrats at various junctures, in which the leader was elected by party members but clearly lacked the support of a majority of the party room. How is a situation like that conducive to stable government?
As a Labor supporter, I’d worry about a situation similar to that faced by the Australian Democrats at various junctures, in which the leader was elected by party members but clearly lacked the support of a majority of the party room. How is a situation like that conducive to stable government?
Don, that is a very nice post.
Don, that is a very nice post.
One potential problem with primaries for party candidates is that after a while as people adapt to the new system, a high level of personal wealth for lobbying/advertising purposes may become necessary.
Matt C @ 20 – and it will become more important for the party to explicitly state what powers their elected leader has. Eg do they get to select their cabinet – if not then what happens when the ministers appointed by the factions go in one direction and their leader heads in another?
One potential problem with primaries for party candidates is that after a while as people adapt to the new system, a high level of personal wealth for lobbying/advertising purposes may become necessary.
Matt C @ 20 – and it will become more important for the party to explicitly state what powers their elected leader has. Eg do they get to select their cabinet – if not then what happens when the ministers appointed by the factions go in one direction and their leader heads in another?
Any democratic legitimacy problem in our political system is very focused, rather than endemic. It is a consequence of one non-fatal omission by the writers of our Constitution. And that is the complete silence on the role of the prime minister. Indeed that office is never mentioned in the entire document.
This constitutional silence has allowed the prime minister’s role to smother both the executive (not only the ministers, but even the G-G) and the legislature, and hover too menacingly over the federal judiciary.
One circuit breaker would be a popularly-elected President whose very limited powers could include some checks on the prime minister.
Rudd was the monstrous incarnation and expression of this constitutional slip-up. Not only did he thumb his nose at the entire membership of the ALP, but also its history, when he unilaterally decreed, he alone would choose not only every single MP who would make up cabinet, but what ministry they would have.
Add to that a couple of High Court judges, and some suspect highly visible vaguely justified foreign affairs sorties, and we had the making of a king, not parliamentary democracy.
Any democratic legitimacy problem in our political system is very focused, rather than endemic. It is a consequence of one non-fatal omission by the writers of our Constitution. And that is the complete silence on the role of the prime minister. Indeed that office is never mentioned in the entire document.
This constitutional silence has allowed the prime minister’s role to smother both the executive (not only the ministers, but even the G-G) and the legislature, and hover too menacingly over the federal judiciary.
One circuit breaker would be a popularly-elected President whose very limited powers could include some checks on the prime minister.
Rudd was the monstrous incarnation and expression of this constitutional slip-up. Not only did he thumb his nose at the entire membership of the ALP, but also its history, when he unilaterally decreed, he alone would choose not only every single MP who would make up cabinet, but what ministry they would have.
Add to that a couple of High Court judges, and some suspect highly visible vaguely justified foreign affairs sorties, and we had the making of a king, not parliamentary democracy.
I wrote about this very subject on the current monster Kevvy thread:
“I want Julia Gillard as leader of the Australian Labor Party to adopt a direct election of the parliamentary leader as exists in the British Labour Party and the Canadian social democratic NDP, systems where you can mosy on down to your local sub-branch, become a member, and not have to first win election as a delegate to a higher council or to conference in order to have a real vote in the furtherance of the party beyond your local branch.
That is what I want—and I would hope that people who want to formulate a constructive response to this whole mess will come to see that this is the best possible outcome of the Great Regicide of Ought Ten.
Yet I have no doubt that no ordinary sub-branch member or minor union official who is a delegate to state conference can do anything more than draft a proposal for this reform (after first getting the permission of their faction chair or union superior, unless they’re non-aligned), give it to the relevant policy committee, and never hear from it again. Best case scenario is a fairly well organised ginger group of state delegates get to draft the proposal, hand it to committee, and never hear from it again.
Basically what I want can only be achieved from top down action initiated by the most well-connected caucus-, party executive- and union movement-leadership types. As was the case in the British Labour Party and the NDP when they changed the rules thus.”
Mark, the local vote in Kilsyth, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/alp-deems-us-style-primary-a-success/story-e6frg6nf-1225858536062, was basically a return to the pre-’55 structure whereby any ordinary sub-branch member or affiliated trade unionist could vote in the preselection for their local MP (now preselections are done by a combination of delegates and party HQ). The old system could work again, precisely because it’s not a genuine open primary, just a means of empowering the existing membership.
I wrote about this very subject on the current monster Kevvy thread:
“I want Julia Gillard as leader of the Australian Labor Party to adopt a direct election of the parliamentary leader as exists in the British Labour Party and the Canadian social democratic NDP, systems where you can mosy on down to your local sub-branch, become a member, and not have to first win election as a delegate to a higher council or to conference in order to have a real vote in the furtherance of the party beyond your local branch.
That is what I want—and I would hope that people who want to formulate a constructive response to this whole mess will come to see that this is the best possible outcome of the Great Regicide of Ought Ten.
Yet I have no doubt that no ordinary sub-branch member or minor union official who is a delegate to state conference can do anything more than draft a proposal for this reform (after first getting the permission of their faction chair or union superior, unless they’re non-aligned), give it to the relevant policy committee, and never hear from it again. Best case scenario is a fairly well organised ginger group of state delegates get to draft the proposal, hand it to committee, and never hear from it again.
Basically what I want can only be achieved from top down action initiated by the most well-connected caucus-, party executive- and union movement-leadership types. As was the case in the British Labour Party and the NDP when they changed the rules thus.”
Mark, the local vote in Kilsyth, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/alp-deems-us-style-primary-a-success/story-e6frg6nf-1225858536062, was basically a return to the pre-’55 structure whereby any ordinary sub-branch member or affiliated trade unionist could vote in the preselection for their local MP (now preselections are done by a combination of delegates and party HQ). The old system could work again, precisely because it’s not a genuine open primary, just a means of empowering the existing membership.
Facepalm.
Facepalm.
There’s been a great deal of talk about how Gillard hasn’t been shown to have the support of the Australian voters.
Now Kevin 07 was indeed an excellent campaign and a not insignificant part of that campaign was the person running as his deputy. It’s not stretching a point to say that she helped him over the line. No it’s not the same and I’m not saying it’s the same and I’d be grateful if people wouldn’t misread me as saying it is the same — but it does seem to me that Gillard has already had at least some show of formal support at an election from the Australian people, and that their willingness to vote for Kevin reflected at least to some extent their approval of the idea that, for whatever reason, Julia might end up taking over.
A useful point of contrast: John McCain. He would have had a far better shot at the White House if people weren’t terrified out of their wits by the idea that Sarah Palin might end up in it.
There’s been a great deal of talk about how Gillard hasn’t been shown to have the support of the Australian voters.
Now Kevin 07 was indeed an excellent campaign and a not insignificant part of that campaign was the person running as his deputy. It’s not stretching a point to say that she helped him over the line. No it’s not the same and I’m not saying it’s the same and I’d be grateful if people wouldn’t misread me as saying it is the same — but it does seem to me that Gillard has already had at least some show of formal support at an election from the Australian people, and that their willingness to vote for Kevin reflected at least to some extent their approval of the idea that, for whatever reason, Julia might end up taking over.
A useful point of contrast: John McCain. He would have had a far better shot at the White House if people weren’t terrified out of their wits by the idea that Sarah Palin might end up in it.
PC, that is a most excellent point. Many people were tempted to vote for McCain because they thought he had more gumption than to simply pander to the base – and then he chose Palin as his running mate and they backed away sharpish.
As another point of contrast, I always thought it a shame (although I understand the reasons why it didn’t happen) that Obama and Clinton weren’t running mates for the 2008 election – the Democrats would have romped home with a record-breaking margin if they could have plastered over that breach between their supporters.
PC, that is a most excellent point. Many people were tempted to vote for McCain because they thought he had more gumption than to simply pander to the base – and then he chose Palin as his running mate and they backed away sharpish.
As another point of contrast, I always thought it a shame (although I understand the reasons why it didn’t happen) that Obama and Clinton weren’t running mates for the 2008 election – the Democrats would have romped home with a record-breaking margin if they could have plastered over that breach between their supporters.
@26 and 27 – I think Gillard was an asset to the 2007 campaign, and it’s ironic, as Ken Lovell observed, that a whole bunch of right wing commentators and wingnuts ran around predicting that we would vote for Kevin, and get Julia. It clearly didn’t have the desired effect of scaring people, and indeed, she’s had good popularity ratings for a long time.
I would observe that since we’re talking about the presidentialisation of the Australian system versus its Westminster practices, that a Deputy PM has no automatic right to inherit the top job. I don’t imagine that anyone believed that Brian Howe would become PM when he was Deputy. If Rudd had fallen under the proverbial bus in 2008, say, caucus could have elected any of its members. It may not necessarily have been Gillard.
That is a difference with the US system where if McCain had passed away, Palin would have become President as of constitutional right, just as Biden will become President if Obama were to.
There’s also a salient difference between Rudd dying/being incapacitated in some way/voluntarily stepping down and being challenged.
So it’s not an exact analogy.
@26 and 27 – I think Gillard was an asset to the 2007 campaign, and it’s ironic, as Ken Lovell observed, that a whole bunch of right wing commentators and wingnuts ran around predicting that we would vote for Kevin, and get Julia. It clearly didn’t have the desired effect of scaring people, and indeed, she’s had good popularity ratings for a long time.
I would observe that since we’re talking about the presidentialisation of the Australian system versus its Westminster practices, that a Deputy PM has no automatic right to inherit the top job. I don’t imagine that anyone believed that Brian Howe would become PM when he was Deputy. If Rudd had fallen under the proverbial bus in 2008, say, caucus could have elected any of its members. It may not necessarily have been Gillard.
That is a difference with the US system where if McCain had passed away, Palin would have become President as of constitutional right, just as Biden will become President if Obama were to.
There’s also a salient difference between Rudd dying/being incapacitated in some way/voluntarily stepping down and being challenged.
So it’s not an exact analogy.
I wonder how much of this disengagement from politics and failures of our institutions has to do with the exhaustion of the dominant ideological narratives of the past century.
The pro-market economic reforms of the Hawke/Keating era removed the last vestige of real distinction between the traditional parties of capital and labour.
In the euphoria of the era of globalism that began with the fall of the Berlin Wall and the triumph of the Washington Consensus, centre left parties sought to reinvent themselves in terms of the Third Way, a concept that never seemed to be anything other than a re-branding exercise.
With the economic arguments settled, the Bush administration and its clone here in Australia under Howard sought to build a new frontier through the culture wars and a militant neo-conservatism – but this, like the Third Way, appeared as a top-down construct.
In the meantime, the populations of developed western democracies stupified themselves with the drug of easy credit, generated by global capital markets, excess developing world savings and loose monetary policy.
There seemed no need for anyone to join a political party because no-one felt passionate about anything anymore, just numbed by their material splendour.
Some say the new politics is about sustainability, but the ease with which the forces of reaction killed off the possibility of real action at Copenhagen and here in Australia suggests populations are not scared enough yet to encourage politicians to stick their necks out and advocate policies that encourage deleveraging, reduced consumption and a focus beyond the next day or week.
So we are left with shells of institutions. Ninety nine per cent of the population don’t know what the Westminster tradition means, see Labor and Liberal as Pepsi and Coke and get their information on politics from a mass media which treats it as a personal popularity contest.
The easy removal of Rudd in the most shadowy of circumstances – with suggestions that he was essentially brought down by Big Capital and the Murdoch media acting through a nervous Labor machine – has failed to elicit any great outrage in the community – despite it being every bit as sinister as the dismissal of Whitlam.
This all suggests to me that the mass of the population just does not care. It doesn’t equate what goes on in Canberra with its own circumstances. And you can tweak the electoral processes as much as you like, but people will go on taking more interest in Masterchef than in politics until either the earth fries or their house prices start collapsing and they’re thrown out of work.
I wonder how much of this disengagement from politics and failures of our institutions has to do with the exhaustion of the dominant ideological narratives of the past century.
The pro-market economic reforms of the Hawke/Keating era removed the last vestige of real distinction between the traditional parties of capital and labour.
In the euphoria of the era of globalism that began with the fall of the Berlin Wall and the triumph of the Washington Consensus, centre left parties sought to reinvent themselves in terms of the Third Way, a concept that never seemed to be anything other than a re-branding exercise.
With the economic arguments settled, the Bush administration and its clone here in Australia under Howard sought to build a new frontier through the culture wars and a militant neo-conservatism – but this, like the Third Way, appeared as a top-down construct.
In the meantime, the populations of developed western democracies stupified themselves with the drug of easy credit, generated by global capital markets, excess developing world savings and loose monetary policy.
There seemed no need for anyone to join a political party because no-one felt passionate about anything anymore, just numbed by their material splendour.
Some say the new politics is about sustainability, but the ease with which the forces of reaction killed off the possibility of real action at Copenhagen and here in Australia suggests populations are not scared enough yet to encourage politicians to stick their necks out and advocate policies that encourage deleveraging, reduced consumption and a focus beyond the next day or week.
So we are left with shells of institutions. Ninety nine per cent of the population don’t know what the Westminster tradition means, see Labor and Liberal as Pepsi and Coke and get their information on politics from a mass media which treats it as a personal popularity contest.
The easy removal of Rudd in the most shadowy of circumstances – with suggestions that he was essentially brought down by Big Capital and the Murdoch media acting through a nervous Labor machine – has failed to elicit any great outrage in the community – despite it being every bit as sinister as the dismissal of Whitlam.
This all suggests to me that the mass of the population just does not care. It doesn’t equate what goes on in Canberra with its own circumstances. And you can tweak the electoral processes as much as you like, but people will go on taking more interest in Masterchef than in politics until either the earth fries or their house prices start collapsing and they’re thrown out of work.
@24 – Nickws, there used to be a similar system in Queensland where party members and members of affiliated unions voted in a plebiscite. It was abused, though, because unions could in effect stack the vote with indifferent members promised a slab of beer at the pub afterwards. But it wouldn’t be difficult to design a similar system, also encompassing registered supporters, which wouldn’t be open to abuse.
I might also mention that shifts in the system, either of preselection or electing a leader, have implications for party/union ties.
@24 – Nickws, there used to be a similar system in Queensland where party members and members of affiliated unions voted in a plebiscite. It was abused, though, because unions could in effect stack the vote with indifferent members promised a slab of beer at the pub afterwards. But it wouldn’t be difficult to design a similar system, also encompassing registered supporters, which wouldn’t be open to abuse.
I might also mention that shifts in the system, either of preselection or electing a leader, have implications for party/union ties.
Mr Denmore
An ironic rejoinder to both your post-class politics point (which I share to an extent) and alleged citizen apathy in the face of Rudd’s sacking, is just how swift and decisive those very same people responded when confronted with a very real class threat and its architect; Workchoices and John Howard.
Mr Denmore
An ironic rejoinder to both your post-class politics point (which I share to an extent) and alleged citizen apathy in the face of Rudd’s sacking, is just how swift and decisive those very same people responded when confronted with a very real class threat and its architect; Workchoices and John Howard.
Amish I agree with your point generally about the decline of sociopolitical capital, I guess you could call it – though I would qualify that I think this decline is a somewhat perennial one, and that, as with Putnam-esque social capital, for every union or bowling club with falling memberships there are other (predominantly online, I would argue) communities springing that are no more or less richer.
I would also agree with your point about the poverty of not journalism per se, but rather the entire political discourse, as typified by its manifestation in mass media (though to be fair, I feel that the current situation is simply one of exacerbation; journalism leapt out of the building quite some time ago, we are only now hitting the ground).
However, I would take some small umbrage with your assertion that the public is [more] disinterested, disengaged, quite frequently ignorant etc. Witness the virulent reaction to WorkChoices, and the decision to go to war in Iraq; both issues generated tremendous public and social discussion, for and against. The quality of said discussion is debatable, perhaps, but I do think Australians care very much about politics and political decisions, when so motivated.
The question is when, and how to motivate them to care, and indeed whether we should. I don’t think apathy is always problematic, though it’s certainly not the star I was born under.
As to solutions, I think primaries would go a long way towards helping the situation. And also respecting a public that can absorb a real point, not a just a talking point, and can appreciate complex messages.
It’s interesting, I work in communications – internal communications now – and my entire job and vocational expertise is geared towards trying to motivate apathetic, cynical or unhappy people. In some ways, my job and its stakeholders mirror the issue we’re discussing here. Paradoxically, it’s both easier and harder to do achieve success than people commonly suppose, and there’s tonnes of data about it, too.
People are happy (with their jobs, in my case) when:
1. They feel that their work is valuable and valued, and (importantly) ties into the goals of the organisation.
2. They understand the goals of the organisation, and why they are the goals.
3. They feel that the organisational leaders are honest, straight-forward, and basically human. They don’t mind bad news very much at all, they just don’t like bad news dressed up as good news.
Simple, right? Almost jaw-droppingly so. But don’t underestimate the force of organisational inertia and interests working against such a straightforward vision (e.g, a bad manager. People derive a huge amount of their satisfaction at work from their managers, by far the majority. Also, people are really shit at predicting what will make them happy).
The parallels to electoral politics are fairly obvious, and yet the system of electoral politics – dare I say the political superstructure – explicitly and effectively disincentives individuals from pursuing even those three, simple goals – and there’s many many more out there in the literature.
It’s funny, and sad, especially when I have seen the difference these things make to people. But we still fight to promulgate those ideas every day, and I’m in an organisation interested in getting it right. I don’t think politicians are in that kind of organisation.
Amish I agree with your point generally about the decline of sociopolitical capital, I guess you could call it – though I would qualify that I think this decline is a somewhat perennial one, and that, as with Putnam-esque social capital, for every union or bowling club with falling memberships there are other (predominantly online, I would argue) communities springing that are no more or less richer.
I would also agree with your point about the poverty of not journalism per se, but rather the entire political discourse, as typified by its manifestation in mass media (though to be fair, I feel that the current situation is simply one of exacerbation; journalism leapt out of the building quite some time ago, we are only now hitting the ground).
However, I would take some small umbrage with your assertion that the public is [more] disinterested, disengaged, quite frequently ignorant etc. Witness the virulent reaction to WorkChoices, and the decision to go to war in Iraq; both issues generated tremendous public and social discussion, for and against. The quality of said discussion is debatable, perhaps, but I do think Australians care very much about politics and political decisions, when so motivated.
The question is when, and how to motivate them to care, and indeed whether we should. I don’t think apathy is always problematic, though it’s certainly not the star I was born under.
As to solutions, I think primaries would go a long way towards helping the situation. And also respecting a public that can absorb a real point, not a just a talking point, and can appreciate complex messages.
It’s interesting, I work in communications – internal communications now – and my entire job and vocational expertise is geared towards trying to motivate apathetic, cynical or unhappy people. In some ways, my job and its stakeholders mirror the issue we’re discussing here. Paradoxically, it’s both easier and harder to do achieve success than people commonly suppose, and there’s tonnes of data about it, too.
People are happy (with their jobs, in my case) when:
1. They feel that their work is valuable and valued, and (importantly) ties into the goals of the organisation.
2. They understand the goals of the organisation, and why they are the goals.
3. They feel that the organisational leaders are honest, straight-forward, and basically human. They don’t mind bad news very much at all, they just don’t like bad news dressed up as good news.
Simple, right? Almost jaw-droppingly so. But don’t underestimate the force of organisational inertia and interests working against such a straightforward vision (e.g, a bad manager. People derive a huge amount of their satisfaction at work from their managers, by far the majority. Also, people are really shit at predicting what will make them happy).
The parallels to electoral politics are fairly obvious, and yet the system of electoral politics – dare I say the political superstructure – explicitly and effectively disincentives individuals from pursuing even those three, simple goals – and there’s many many more out there in the literature.
It’s funny, and sad, especially when I have seen the difference these things make to people. But we still fight to promulgate those ideas every day, and I’m in an organisation interested in getting it right. I don’t think politicians are in that kind of organisation.
@6
“I understand your ‘slippery slope’ analogy but it is tired and a lost cause. Enjoy Julia and watch her campaign. She will be fun.”
It’s a pity to see this kind of drivel in response to a piece that someone has gone to some trouble to create. Anyway, I don’t believe that the sort of root and branch changes to the political system that are involved in primaries and electoral colleges are necessary. We had a perfectly good system based on convention and, dare I say it, tradition. I think that all we can do is hope that this is not a precedent. I not sure about that though, and that is why I object to the trivialization of what is a very serious turn of events.
Some people seem to think that this all turns on Rudd, that if it had been someone else it wouldn’t have happened this way. What cobblers. The entire fiasco was constructed from a confection of intangibles that suited certain people’s plans. A very worrying precedent indeed as the electorate really has no idea what those plans are.
@6
“I understand your ‘slippery slope’ analogy but it is tired and a lost cause. Enjoy Julia and watch her campaign. She will be fun.”
It’s a pity to see this kind of drivel in response to a piece that someone has gone to some trouble to create. Anyway, I don’t believe that the sort of root and branch changes to the political system that are involved in primaries and electoral colleges are necessary. We had a perfectly good system based on convention and, dare I say it, tradition. I think that all we can do is hope that this is not a precedent. I not sure about that though, and that is why I object to the trivialization of what is a very serious turn of events.
Some people seem to think that this all turns on Rudd, that if it had been someone else it wouldn’t have happened this way. What cobblers. The entire fiasco was constructed from a confection of intangibles that suited certain people’s plans. A very worrying precedent indeed as the electorate really has no idea what those plans are.
No, of course not, and I went to elaborate lengths in the comment to say that it wasn’t. But I’m sure you see the spirit of the point.
No, of course not, and I went to elaborate lengths in the comment to say that it wasn’t. But I’m sure you see the spirit of the point.
@34 – yes, for sure.
@34 – yes, for sure.
Mark, I’ve been thinking about this, and have come to the conclusion that for any OMOV federal leadership election there is a very unique situation—unions are neither affiliated to nor properly recognised by the national party!
Think about it. The national conference is made up of delegates elected by state conferences (those are the bodies in which unions have direct representation as unions). There is no weighted union block vote at the federal conference, hence the factions fill that role, albeit I gather only Rightwing unionists and Martin Ferguson types from the Left unions would agree with the proposition that factions can represent them as well as they represent themselves. And all union fees go to the state branches, not the federal party IIRC.
Simon Crean copped a lot of stick for reducing the number of unionists at national conference from 60-40% to 50-50%, but all those unionist delegates only ever had one vote per person to begin with, not the percentages they wield in the state bodies.
This is all very mundane, but it shows there are many little nuances to party reform that the MSM just wouldn’t get if Gillard were to call for any such thing.
Mark, I’ve been thinking about this, and have come to the conclusion that for any OMOV federal leadership election there is a very unique situation—unions are neither affiliated to nor properly recognised by the national party!
Think about it. The national conference is made up of delegates elected by state conferences (those are the bodies in which unions have direct representation as unions). There is no weighted union block vote at the federal conference, hence the factions fill that role, albeit I gather only Rightwing unionists and Martin Ferguson types from the Left unions would agree with the proposition that factions can represent them as well as they represent themselves. And all union fees go to the state branches, not the federal party IIRC.
Simon Crean copped a lot of stick for reducing the number of unionists at national conference from 60-40% to 50-50%, but all those unionist delegates only ever had one vote per person to begin with, not the percentages they wield in the state bodies.
This is all very mundane, but it shows there are many little nuances to party reform that the MSM just wouldn’t get if Gillard were to call for any such thing.
Mark, fair play. I think you’re obviously a lot more freaked out by the killing of Rudd politically than I am. I don’t think primaries are linked as a solution, they are about a bigger shift in politics. I do think the Liberal party might find it easier to move to candidate selection by primaries than Labor as Labor’s traditions around core membership, doing time, serving the party and it’s union affiliations are not ide3ally suited to a more open political environment for politicians to emerge.
I wrote in 2005:
“The Labor membership has become a marginalised Left and consequently fails to represent local electorates in areas such as Lindsay and Makin, for example. People who have worked on campaigns have been repeatedly made aware of this – (with advice such as) “Don’t speak about Mabo, interest rates, tax, economic management, refugees”, among other issues. But when you consider that the health of the economy generally, and interest rates in particular, are lightening rod issues, it becomes clear that most of the grounds where Labor can claim credibility and respect are limited by its current membership. The real issue is that Labor may run away from its members’ concerns at election time, but it can’t hide from the reality.”
and
“Self-serving premiers and factional warriors are a symptom of a party that knows its membership is out of touch. The “elites” of the party who have access to polling know they need to distance themselves from some of the more extreme tendencies of Labor’s Left. These elites, whether Richardson, Keating and Ray in the 1980s, or Mandelson, Blair and Brown in Britain in the 1990s, know that the traditional messages of the Labor membership are the real reasons for past failures in centre-ground electorates.”
and
“Labor needs a bigger constituency to move beyond its identity crisis. It must seek a bigger pool of opinion to find both its legitimacy and its values to win elections consistently.
Labor needs to move to centre rather than being captured by the Left. If primaries are done well and large numbers turn out to select the candidate, the candidate who wins will be from the centre of politics.
Primaries encourage growth and involvement at a time when Labor’s membership is in crisis. Branch stacking may be a symptom of branch warfare but its collateral damage has been the loss of openness and attractiveness of the membership. The culture of Labor has been set for the “Young Turks”, and it is a culture of internal warfare and little else.
It is important primaries require aspiring politicians to connect with community issues. A system that rewards involvement in neighbourhoods, schools, unions, churches, policy forums and business would provide a popular candidate choice from a broad range of centre and left-of-centre. This can only create interest and debate of Labor’s policies and values.”
These issues are still there in my view.
Mark, fair play. I think you’re obviously a lot more freaked out by the killing of Rudd politically than I am. I don’t think primaries are linked as a solution, they are about a bigger shift in politics. I do think the Liberal party might find it easier to move to candidate selection by primaries than Labor as Labor’s traditions around core membership, doing time, serving the party and it’s union affiliations are not ide3ally suited to a more open political environment for politicians to emerge.
I wrote in 2005:
“The Labor membership has become a marginalised Left and consequently fails to represent local electorates in areas such as Lindsay and Makin, for example. People who have worked on campaigns have been repeatedly made aware of this – (with advice such as) “Don’t speak about Mabo, interest rates, tax, economic management, refugees”, among other issues. But when you consider that the health of the economy generally, and interest rates in particular, are lightening rod issues, it becomes clear that most of the grounds where Labor can claim credibility and respect are limited by its current membership. The real issue is that Labor may run away from its members’ concerns at election time, but it can’t hide from the reality.”
and
“Self-serving premiers and factional warriors are a symptom of a party that knows its membership is out of touch. The “elites” of the party who have access to polling know they need to distance themselves from some of the more extreme tendencies of Labor’s Left. These elites, whether Richardson, Keating and Ray in the 1980s, or Mandelson, Blair and Brown in Britain in the 1990s, know that the traditional messages of the Labor membership are the real reasons for past failures in centre-ground electorates.”
and
“Labor needs a bigger constituency to move beyond its identity crisis. It must seek a bigger pool of opinion to find both its legitimacy and its values to win elections consistently.
Labor needs to move to centre rather than being captured by the Left. If primaries are done well and large numbers turn out to select the candidate, the candidate who wins will be from the centre of politics.
Primaries encourage growth and involvement at a time when Labor’s membership is in crisis. Branch stacking may be a symptom of branch warfare but its collateral damage has been the loss of openness and attractiveness of the membership. The culture of Labor has been set for the “Young Turks”, and it is a culture of internal warfare and little else.
It is important primaries require aspiring politicians to connect with community issues. A system that rewards involvement in neighbourhoods, schools, unions, churches, policy forums and business would provide a popular candidate choice from a broad range of centre and left-of-centre. This can only create interest and debate of Labor’s policies and values.”
These issues are still there in my view.
For the life of me I can not make head nor tail of Mark’s deifying of Rudd.
For the life of me I can not make head nor tail of Mark’s deifying of Rudd.
@38 – I’m tired of having to repeat myself, Ossie. I am not ‘deifying’ or ‘canonising’ Rudd. If you’d been around here for longer than the past week, you’d know I’ve often been highly critical of him in the past. And if you’d been reading carefully this week, you’d notice that I’ve hardly been uncritical of aspects of his legacy and his governing style.
So please do not put words in my mouth, or claim that I am motivated by some belief I do not hold.
My central concerns, as stated in this post, is what last week’s events say about legitimacy, the ALP, and our political system.
I really would appreciate your not distorting my views.
Please also note that the contents policy asks commenters to direct their comments to the arguments people make, not to some putative reason that might be inferred for them. This thread is not about my view of Kevin Rudd as an individual or as PM. Please respect that.
@38 – I’m tired of having to repeat myself, Ossie. I am not ‘deifying’ or ‘canonising’ Rudd. If you’d been around here for longer than the past week, you’d know I’ve often been highly critical of him in the past. And if you’d been reading carefully this week, you’d notice that I’ve hardly been uncritical of aspects of his legacy and his governing style.
So please do not put words in my mouth, or claim that I am motivated by some belief I do not hold.
My central concerns, as stated in this post, is what last week’s events say about legitimacy, the ALP, and our political system.
I really would appreciate your not distorting my views.
Please also note that the contents policy asks commenters to direct their comments to the arguments people make, not to some putative reason that might be inferred for them. This thread is not about my view of Kevin Rudd as an individual or as PM. Please respect that.
I disagree fervently.
I don’t understand how people can triumph the success of the modern Labor Party as the party that produces the greatest retail political leaders in contemporary Australia and yet also think its potential top leaders should be hermetically sealed into a small, insular group of men and women who meet at uni, go to work as unionists/staffers/labour lawyers, then become MPs without having to do retail politics in front of a tough audience (most of these jokers hold safe seats, remember). This is not pragmatism.
I also think this grossly underestimates the ability of the likes of Bracks and Beattie (need I mention Hawke? Or Gillard?)
Corrin, I think you’re mistaken if you think the ALP adopting the British Labour system for leaders elections is some vulgar Americanism that our system can’t adapt too.
And I don’t think anyone seriously believes we should go down the US path and have devil-takes-the-hindmost primaries for every seat at every level of government.
I disagree fervently.
I don’t understand how people can triumph the success of the modern Labor Party as the party that produces the greatest retail political leaders in contemporary Australia and yet also think its potential top leaders should be hermetically sealed into a small, insular group of men and women who meet at uni, go to work as unionists/staffers/labour lawyers, then become MPs without having to do retail politics in front of a tough audience (most of these jokers hold safe seats, remember). This is not pragmatism.
I also think this grossly underestimates the ability of the likes of Bracks and Beattie (need I mention Hawke? Or Gillard?)
Corrin, I think you’re mistaken if you think the ALP adopting the British Labour system for leaders elections is some vulgar Americanism that our system can’t adapt too.
And I don’t think anyone seriously believes we should go down the US path and have devil-takes-the-hindmost primaries for every seat at every level of government.
Nick, I don’t think Corin was saying that the ALP wouldn’t benefit from primaries, nor that certain ALP figures wouldn’t thrive in that environment, just that elements of the way that party is constituted might make it harder for the party to transition to that system than the Liberal party, in large part because those that benefit from the current system would be unlikely to give up their power easily.
Nick, I don’t think Corin was saying that the ALP wouldn’t benefit from primaries, nor that certain ALP figures wouldn’t thrive in that environment, just that elements of the way that party is constituted might make it harder for the party to transition to that system than the Liberal party, in large part because those that benefit from the current system would be unlikely to give up their power easily.
Mark, if we play the man it is because that is our mallous I guess. I do think in a raw environment, to philosophise is a tad obtuse though. Let’s be raw for a bit … I won’t be commenting on any more Gillard v Rudd posts nor on whether she wins or whether Rudd may have done as well or not. I clearly have a need to spill blood without philosophy. Let’s raise a toast though to Gillard “the slayer of many beasts, including Mark’s innocence”. Labor it always let’s you down.
For what it’s worth, one comment. I’d have no wish to be involved in Parliamentary life again in the same way and the last few weeks have made it clear I have no stomach for it. But, that doesn’t make blood lust in politics all bad.
And yet, I am just not that big a b*stard … good luck to those who are and also to most who waste the best years of their lives not seeing their kids. LO and I got out at the high tide … I feel lucky. many Labor front benchers will not be remebered greatly but could have been Departmental Secretaries, business leaders or more. Ross Garnaut must think he’s the luckiest guy in the world for not becoming an MP and getting chewed up. He always seemed to know he wasn’t there for the politics but the policy.
Pray please let Mr Leigh have a good run and keep his dignity and demeanor … he’s a better man than I. Not sure that helps in the modern Labor party.
Mark, if we play the man it is because that is our mallous I guess. I do think in a raw environment, to philosophise is a tad obtuse though. Let’s be raw for a bit … I won’t be commenting on any more Gillard v Rudd posts nor on whether she wins or whether Rudd may have done as well or not. I clearly have a need to spill blood without philosophy. Let’s raise a toast though to Gillard “the slayer of many beasts, including Mark’s innocence”. Labor it always let’s you down.
For what it’s worth, one comment. I’d have no wish to be involved in Parliamentary life again in the same way and the last few weeks have made it clear I have no stomach for it. But, that doesn’t make blood lust in politics all bad.
And yet, I am just not that big a b*stard … good luck to those who are and also to most who waste the best years of their lives not seeing their kids. LO and I got out at the high tide … I feel lucky. many Labor front benchers will not be remebered greatly but could have been Departmental Secretaries, business leaders or more. Ross Garnaut must think he’s the luckiest guy in the world for not becoming an MP and getting chewed up. He always seemed to know he wasn’t there for the politics but the policy.
Pray please let Mr Leigh have a good run and keep his dignity and demeanor … he’s a better man than I. Not sure that helps in the modern Labor party.
Geez Mark
OK. Sorry, my word choice was a little flamboyant. I have been reading what you have been writing, which is why I started posting. I know you have been critical of him in the past. However, your reaction to this spill sure seems to reveal an attachment a lot stronger than your past threads might have revealed.
If that is my failure to read properly, I’ll cop that, and read more closely.
Geez Mark
OK. Sorry, my word choice was a little flamboyant. I have been reading what you have been writing, which is why I started posting. I know you have been critical of him in the past. However, your reaction to this spill sure seems to reveal an attachment a lot stronger than your past threads might have revealed.
If that is my failure to read properly, I’ll cop that, and read more closely.
Nickws
You are so right that much of the discourse of the past week has silenced what TRULY great Labor leadership is and has been. And I definitely rate Julia as possibly in the same class as the greatest of all; Bob Hawke.
But to those gazing fondly at US and UK selection systems, don’t ignore the chasm between on the one hand, Australian English constitutional and political structures, and on the other hand a different chasm between us and the US.
Also, I’m not really persuaded that the US Democrats have much relationship – even analogical – to Australian Labor. OTOH, Rudd did follow the recipe book of Bill Clinton’s “kitchen table economics” campaigning strategy. I forget the name of that Clinton strategist Rudd shipped over here in 2007.
Nickws
You are so right that much of the discourse of the past week has silenced what TRULY great Labor leadership is and has been. And I definitely rate Julia as possibly in the same class as the greatest of all; Bob Hawke.
But to those gazing fondly at US and UK selection systems, don’t ignore the chasm between on the one hand, Australian English constitutional and political structures, and on the other hand a different chasm between us and the US.
Also, I’m not really persuaded that the US Democrats have much relationship – even analogical – to Australian Labor. OTOH, Rudd did follow the recipe book of Bill Clinton’s “kitchen table economics” campaigning strategy. I forget the name of that Clinton strategist Rudd shipped over here in 2007.
I think this is the one of the major problems with Australian democracy. But what are the chances of changing it? Those in power will only change the rules if it benefits them. Australia needs McGovern-Fraser reforms, but let’s not forget that those were only set up so that McGovern could get the Democratic nomination in ’72.
I think this is the one of the major problems with Australian democracy. But what are the chances of changing it? Those in power will only change the rules if it benefits them. Australia needs McGovern-Fraser reforms, but let’s not forget that those were only set up so that McGovern could get the Democratic nomination in ’72.
Political parties are “private” not “public” organisations, and by rights tend to reflexively object to any legislative interference in their affairs. That is not to say they will not use the power of government to protect their own interests when necessary. The two major political parties have jointly legislated to hide their own secret and in many cases corrupt internal preselection procedures from public scrutiny via the Privacy Act, for example.
The Australian Electoral Commission has suggested to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters in the past that if the majors want to clean up their preselection processes, and avoid those ugly branch-stacking brawls, they could legislate to have preselections conducted by the AEC in a transparent and accountable manner, as many trade unions and corporations already do, for a fee returned to the taxpayer from these private entities.
With public support and lobbying, such a fundamental but porbably effective change is within the realms of possibility, as there are already some seasoned and powerful parliamentarians who might support such a move, if it were promoted as a bipartisan cause…
At another level, too many Australian voters are tragically uneducated about how our electoral system works, not to mention the general principles of our Constitution. For decades now, Australian public schools have stripped from their curriculums anything that might remotely be regarded as “political”, and so we have created generations of voters who have little idea what they are doing when they vote, beyond barracking for someone they “would like to have a beer with”. The fault is ours, collectively.
Our public education system needs a real revolution. We should be teaching our children (and our new migrants) the proud history of the Australian franchise, and the value of their vote.
Political parties are “private” not “public” organisations, and by rights tend to reflexively object to any legislative interference in their affairs. That is not to say they will not use the power of government to protect their own interests when necessary. The two major political parties have jointly legislated to hide their own secret and in many cases corrupt internal preselection procedures from public scrutiny via the Privacy Act, for example.
The Australian Electoral Commission has suggested to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters in the past that if the majors want to clean up their preselection processes, and avoid those ugly branch-stacking brawls, they could legislate to have preselections conducted by the AEC in a transparent and accountable manner, as many trade unions and corporations already do, for a fee returned to the taxpayer from these private entities.
With public support and lobbying, such a fundamental but porbably effective change is within the realms of possibility, as there are already some seasoned and powerful parliamentarians who might support such a move, if it were promoted as a bipartisan cause…
At another level, too many Australian voters are tragically uneducated about how our electoral system works, not to mention the general principles of our Constitution. For decades now, Australian public schools have stripped from their curriculums anything that might remotely be regarded as “political”, and so we have created generations of voters who have little idea what they are doing when they vote, beyond barracking for someone they “would like to have a beer with”. The fault is ours, collectively.
Our public education system needs a real revolution. We should be teaching our children (and our new migrants) the proud history of the Australian franchise, and the value of their vote.
Following on from the comment at 41- all those so predisposed or persuaded by arguments that by participating you’ll start to make a difference – please join the Fairfield local branch in NSW and report to us how you get on.
Following on from the comment at 41- all those so predisposed or persuaded by arguments that by participating you’ll start to make a difference – please join the Fairfield local branch in NSW and report to us how you get on.
I don’t believe any attempt to further regulate how parties conduct their affairs is justified. Parties operate in a kind of market and just like in any other market, the case for interference by the state needs to be compelling before it should be considered. ‘Electoral reform’, like any other kind of top-down institutional change, is certain to produce unanticipated consequences that may well leave us worse off than we are now.
We’ve all had our say about the way Labor has been recaptured by the backroom machine men and the unions. For me, the party is back where it was in the 1950s and I will preference the Coalition ahead of it. That’s the price it has paid in the political market from one consumer. Some other people will do the same, while others will do the opposite. The aggregate outcome will determine who takes government and that is as it should be.
We do not live in a participatory democracy. We have a system of governance where a tiny class of professional political actors compete for votes. Numerous interest groups possess varying amounts of power and try to leverage it into influence over the state. That’s how our pluralist system has evolved and it’s better to accept it and work within it than to try to engineer changes in a top-down fashion.
I don’t believe any attempt to further regulate how parties conduct their affairs is justified. Parties operate in a kind of market and just like in any other market, the case for interference by the state needs to be compelling before it should be considered. ‘Electoral reform’, like any other kind of top-down institutional change, is certain to produce unanticipated consequences that may well leave us worse off than we are now.
We’ve all had our say about the way Labor has been recaptured by the backroom machine men and the unions. For me, the party is back where it was in the 1950s and I will preference the Coalition ahead of it. That’s the price it has paid in the political market from one consumer. Some other people will do the same, while others will do the opposite. The aggregate outcome will determine who takes government and that is as it should be.
We do not live in a participatory democracy. We have a system of governance where a tiny class of professional political actors compete for votes. Numerous interest groups possess varying amounts of power and try to leverage it into influence over the state. That’s how our pluralist system has evolved and it’s better to accept it and work within it than to try to engineer changes in a top-down fashion.
Ossie, maybe it is just about the old Aussie virtue of not kicking a person when they are down. Rudd is no better or worse than the rest of us, altho quite gifted.
Just a human being with human tendencies and as with all of this, these inevitably lead to grief somewhere in a lifecycle as part of some new learning curve.
Like riding a bike when you are a kid. Is there a single person who never came off a bike, just when they thought they’d sorted the bike riding caper?
Ossie, maybe it is just about the old Aussie virtue of not kicking a person when they are down. Rudd is no better or worse than the rest of us, altho quite gifted.
Just a human being with human tendencies and as with all of this, these inevitably lead to grief somewhere in a lifecycle as part of some new learning curve.
Like riding a bike when you are a kid. Is there a single person who never came off a bike, just when they thought they’d sorted the bike riding caper?
grace
Australia’s tragedy is also its saving virtue (I won’t use your name in vain there). As the ghost of Sir Edmund Barton reminded us on our TV screens during the centenary of Federation, “Our country was formed by a vote, not by a war.”
I just imagine HOW you could interest an Aussie nipper in our Constitution. Until very recently, I would have drunk a gallon of paint-stripper rather than enrol in an Australian history course.
Surprisingly, did quite a LOT in primary school, and pretty progressive too by the standards of the day (pre-Mabo). But then I avoided it all through high school, until timetable clashes forced me to Modern European History for 2 years of HSC. But yay! Australian wasn’t mentioned once.
Today? I am reading memoirs of AWU members from the 1980s and 1990s and their views on England, the Chinese, class struggle, parliamentary democracy (I kid you not). I can cite pretty much most of our Constitution’s provisions, the relevant sections, iconic high court decisions, how they interrelate, and so on. And you know what? It fascinates the hell out of me today.
But if you really want to blow your mind, there’s a project based at Macquarie Uni Law school, which is putting online for all to access, every single case that came before the NSW Supreme Court from Captain Phillip onwards. Given they were mostly then thoroughly reported in the the Sydney Morning Herald with no idea that political correctness beckoned a mere 150 years away, they don’t hold back!
grace
Australia’s tragedy is also its saving virtue (I won’t use your name in vain there). As the ghost of Sir Edmund Barton reminded us on our TV screens during the centenary of Federation, “Our country was formed by a vote, not by a war.”
I just imagine HOW you could interest an Aussie nipper in our Constitution. Until very recently, I would have drunk a gallon of paint-stripper rather than enrol in an Australian history course.
Surprisingly, did quite a LOT in primary school, and pretty progressive too by the standards of the day (pre-Mabo). But then I avoided it all through high school, until timetable clashes forced me to Modern European History for 2 years of HSC. But yay! Australian wasn’t mentioned once.
Today? I am reading memoirs of AWU members from the 1980s and 1990s and their views on England, the Chinese, class struggle, parliamentary democracy (I kid you not). I can cite pretty much most of our Constitution’s provisions, the relevant sections, iconic high court decisions, how they interrelate, and so on. And you know what? It fascinates the hell out of me today.
But if you really want to blow your mind, there’s a project based at Macquarie Uni Law school, which is putting online for all to access, every single case that came before the NSW Supreme Court from Captain Phillip onwards. Given they were mostly then thoroughly reported in the the Sydney Morning Herald with no idea that political correctness beckoned a mere 150 years away, they don’t hold back!
112 caucus members we’re told but when Rudd rolled Beazley it was 47-45 if I recall. The numbers don’t stack up. Or were they his numbers against Gillard?
All anyone dissatisfied with the Rudd Roll can do is vote accordingly to oust those that make up the factional oligarchy.
112 caucus members we’re told but when Rudd rolled Beazley it was 47-45 if I recall. The numbers don’t stack up. Or were they his numbers against Gillard?
All anyone dissatisfied with the Rudd Roll can do is vote accordingly to oust those that make up the factional oligarchy.
Senexx, it would be pretty rare for all 112 to vote – no doubt there were a couple of abstentions and a couple of people absent. No great mystery.
There were no “his numbers against Gillard” – Gillard at that time did not run for the leadership, and was elected unopposed as deputy.
Senexx, it would be pretty rare for all 112 to vote – no doubt there were a couple of abstentions and a couple of people absent. No great mystery.
There were no “his numbers against Gillard” – Gillard at that time did not run for the leadership, and was elected unopposed as deputy.
Corin is correct about the difficulty that Labor would face in introducing primaries. But the reasons are more direct than “traditions”.
All the state and territory branches of the ALP count in their memberships trade union representation. These unions claim by right representation on State Executives and by exercise of these state and territory power bases representation at National Conference.
Moreover, a large proportion of the funding of the operations of the ALP come from union subscriptions.
How would this representation be weighed were the ALP to move to primaries? for example, how many votes would the AWU get in NSW and in which electorates would their votes be counted?
The ALP is a strange hybrid of collectivism and individual commitment. At the level of representation and participatory democracy these two principles are at war with each other.
Yet both tendencies need each other. A union-dominated party would be a mere electoral rump. A party of leftist individuals would be an impoverished irrelevancy.
Corin is correct about the difficulty that Labor would face in introducing primaries. But the reasons are more direct than “traditions”.
All the state and territory branches of the ALP count in their memberships trade union representation. These unions claim by right representation on State Executives and by exercise of these state and territory power bases representation at National Conference.
Moreover, a large proportion of the funding of the operations of the ALP come from union subscriptions.
How would this representation be weighed were the ALP to move to primaries? for example, how many votes would the AWU get in NSW and in which electorates would their votes be counted?
The ALP is a strange hybrid of collectivism and individual commitment. At the level of representation and participatory democracy these two principles are at war with each other.
Yet both tendencies need each other. A union-dominated party would be a mere electoral rump. A party of leftist individuals would be an impoverished irrelevancy.
@51 – Sennexx, the leader is elected by MPs and Senators. The Beazley v. Rudd contest took place in the last parliamentary term when there were fewer Labor MPs and Senators.
@51 – Sennexx, the leader is elected by MPs and Senators. The Beazley v. Rudd contest took place in the last parliamentary term when there were fewer Labor MPs and Senators.
@Mark, duh of course. Shows I should not be answering questions before I’ve had coffee.
@Mark, duh of course. Shows I should not be answering questions before I’ve had coffee.
@55 – I’m caffeinating now, Rebekka!
@55 – I’m caffeinating now, Rebekka!
Without a socialist alternative, that is to say, in the wake of the collpapse of actually existing socialism in the form of the USSR, the parliamentary path to redistributive social equity has fallen totally captive to capital and the self interested careerism of reactionary elements of the working class.
The inner democratic practices of the Greens are re-training citizens as to how social democracy can (should) work.
Democracy is more vigorous outside parliaments and parties, the Greens excepted, than within. Activism outside of parliamentary structures will defend democracy rather than attempts, doomed to failure, to impose new requirements for democracy on political parties.
The ecological crisis is thecrisis of legitimacy for democracy. Better to start now to create a genuine capacity for democracy than have any future attempts fall prey to populist far right nationalist ecological solutions or corporatist alliances between fractions of the working class and capital (big dirt, for example).
Without a socialist alternative, that is to say, in the wake of the collpapse of actually existing socialism in the form of the USSR, the parliamentary path to redistributive social equity has fallen totally captive to capital and the self interested careerism of reactionary elements of the working class.
The inner democratic practices of the Greens are re-training citizens as to how social democracy can (should) work.
Democracy is more vigorous outside parliaments and parties, the Greens excepted, than within. Activism outside of parliamentary structures will defend democracy rather than attempts, doomed to failure, to impose new requirements for democracy on political parties.
The ecological crisis is thecrisis of legitimacy for democracy. Better to start now to create a genuine capacity for democracy than have any future attempts fall prey to populist far right nationalist ecological solutions or corporatist alliances between fractions of the working class and capital (big dirt, for example).
I think we need to look at what happens in the US before we rush to primaries or convoluted processes for electing and removing leaders.
Firstly primaries: In the US, success in primaries requires big bucks that are not going to come from the party. It is just too easy for candidates to be more closely tied to their financial supporters than the party. If we are going to go the primary route we need a system that avoids the need for primary candidates to spend.
Secondly there is the problem of “knowing the candidates”. Particularly important when we are talking about leaders. I have more confidence that MP’s will elect leaders without too many detrimental flaws that voters who really only see the public personae.
Secondly removal: The US system made it far too hard for Nixon to be removed and may have meant that Reagen stayed as president when those around him realized that he was starting to get alzheimers. Sure, leaders do get done when perhaps they shouldn’t but I cannot think of any changes in either party that were completely ridiculous. Best of all our system does make it easy for MP’s to correct their mistakes.
I think we need to look at what happens in the US before we rush to primaries or convoluted processes for electing and removing leaders.
Firstly primaries: In the US, success in primaries requires big bucks that are not going to come from the party. It is just too easy for candidates to be more closely tied to their financial supporters than the party. If we are going to go the primary route we need a system that avoids the need for primary candidates to spend.
Secondly there is the problem of “knowing the candidates”. Particularly important when we are talking about leaders. I have more confidence that MP’s will elect leaders without too many detrimental flaws that voters who really only see the public personae.
Secondly removal: The US system made it far too hard for Nixon to be removed and may have meant that Reagen stayed as president when those around him realized that he was starting to get alzheimers. Sure, leaders do get done when perhaps they shouldn’t but I cannot think of any changes in either party that were completely ridiculous. Best of all our system does make it easy for MP’s to correct their mistakes.
I disagree. I like the Keep It Simple Stupid nature of the Westminster system we currently have. It is a good thing that a dud leader can be easily replaced, not a bad thing.
You make far too much of the legitimacy issue- by the time the next election is called the coalition will sound like a bunch of harpies if they keep questioning Gillard’s legitimacy.
Furthermore, Americans are even less politically engaged than Australians so I don’t see much value in aping aspects of their system, such as primaries. And do we really want to see candidates busing senior citizens to the primaries as per the United States? You must be joking.
The real problem I see with Australian democracy is a largely cynical and disengaged public and the difficulty in getting talented people to run for office. How do we fix this problem? Can it be fixed?
I disagree. I like the Keep It Simple Stupid nature of the Westminster system we currently have. It is a good thing that a dud leader can be easily replaced, not a bad thing.
You make far too much of the legitimacy issue- by the time the next election is called the coalition will sound like a bunch of harpies if they keep questioning Gillard’s legitimacy.
Furthermore, Americans are even less politically engaged than Australians so I don’t see much value in aping aspects of their system, such as primaries. And do we really want to see candidates busing senior citizens to the primaries as per the United States? You must be joking.
The real problem I see with Australian democracy is a largely cynical and disengaged public and the difficulty in getting talented people to run for office. How do we fix this problem? Can it be fixed?
Heck, the Social Democrats in Sweden have over 100,000 members according to Wiki. Per capita that is like the ALP having almost 250,000 members.
It puzzles me that Australian “social democrats” prefer to look to the US for ideas rather than the litmus test social democratic states in northern Europe. Why is this? A bad experience at Ikea perhaps?
Heck, the Social Democrats in Sweden have over 100,000 members according to Wiki. Per capita that is like the ALP having almost 250,000 members.
It puzzles me that Australian “social democrats” prefer to look to the US for ideas rather than the litmus test social democratic states in northern Europe. Why is this? A bad experience at Ikea perhaps?
Salient @59: “…the difficulty in getting talented people to run for office. How do we fix this problem? Can it be fixed?”
Not possible, I reckon. The whole setup looks like a rats nest of intrigue, spin and posturing.
Adverse selection applies for most normal people.
Salient @59: “…the difficulty in getting talented people to run for office. How do we fix this problem? Can it be fixed?”
Not possible, I reckon. The whole setup looks like a rats nest of intrigue, spin and posturing.
Adverse selection applies for most normal people.
I tend to agree with Salient. Primaries don’t make for greater democratic legitimacy — as the US system amply shows. All it does is provide a new vehicle for corrupting the process of candidate selection.It would necessarily have to be tightly regulated, because the political equivalent of trolls would surely arise.
Putting aside my own preferred solution — with which most here are familiar, but is hardly likely to arise any time soon, a fairly minimalist solution would be to ensure that nobody could be a voting member of a political party claiming government funding who wasn’t on the electoral roll at the address they have given the party admin and which was then registered with the relevant electoral office(s). Anyone who moved would have to adjust their details not later than 21 days after moving. Details of one’s current registration details would be available to each individual on the web at the relevant electoral office site, and where necessary, they could vary the details themselves. Amendments would then be sent back to party offices, and they would be required to update their records and affirm the changes.
Whenever a party ballot was taken, the current list of party members eligible to vote would be published in advance and circulated to the voting pool, without contact details, on the Electoral Office letterhead. use of the letterhead with out of date or incorrect listing would be an offence.
Anyone who beleived the publication was in error could complain directly to the electoral office, who would investigate and respond.
These measures would make branch-stacking quite a bit harder.
I tend to agree with Salient. Primaries don’t make for greater democratic legitimacy — as the US system amply shows. All it does is provide a new vehicle for corrupting the process of candidate selection.It would necessarily have to be tightly regulated, because the political equivalent of trolls would surely arise.
Putting aside my own preferred solution — with which most here are familiar, but is hardly likely to arise any time soon, a fairly minimalist solution would be to ensure that nobody could be a voting member of a political party claiming government funding who wasn’t on the electoral roll at the address they have given the party admin and which was then registered with the relevant electoral office(s). Anyone who moved would have to adjust their details not later than 21 days after moving. Details of one’s current registration details would be available to each individual on the web at the relevant electoral office site, and where necessary, they could vary the details themselves. Amendments would then be sent back to party offices, and they would be required to update their records and affirm the changes.
Whenever a party ballot was taken, the current list of party members eligible to vote would be published in advance and circulated to the voting pool, without contact details, on the Electoral Office letterhead. use of the letterhead with out of date or incorrect listing would be an offence.
Anyone who beleived the publication was in error could complain directly to the electoral office, who would investigate and respond.
These measures would make branch-stacking quite a bit harder.
I havent read all previous comments, but here goes. There is a system in place in central or South America which involves members of the public taking seats (in a senate kind of house, I think)on a fairly highly rotational basis. Once you’ve served, you cannot be reelected as there is a rotation in place. Sort of similar to what TERjep proposed (Paraguay, Uruguay or Venezuela perhaps?).
The benefits are many. The biggest being a much better involvement of the populace in the running of the country. Also less time for lobby groups to seduce members, less opportunity for corruption. Less influence for established oligarchies/parties.
We are crying out for more meaningful participation than party membership or ballot box attendance. I’ve yet to hear the downsides of this. We go to war to (supposedly)spread democracy when there is so much that could be done to improve ours.
I havent read all previous comments, but here goes. There is a system in place in central or South America which involves members of the public taking seats (in a senate kind of house, I think)on a fairly highly rotational basis. Once you’ve served, you cannot be reelected as there is a rotation in place. Sort of similar to what TERjep proposed (Paraguay, Uruguay or Venezuela perhaps?).
The benefits are many. The biggest being a much better involvement of the populace in the running of the country. Also less time for lobby groups to seduce members, less opportunity for corruption. Less influence for established oligarchies/parties.
We are crying out for more meaningful participation than party membership or ballot box attendance. I’ve yet to hear the downsides of this. We go to war to (supposedly)spread democracy when there is so much that could be done to improve ours.
Oo @ 63 no matter what problems are associated with our present system, they would pale into insignificance compared to a system that entrusted government to a random bunch of people plucked off the street.
Contrary to Hollywood myths, government is actually a highly complex function requiring years of education and preparation to undertake in any kind of competent fashion. A parliament of Steve Fieldings might be entertaining for a few days but it would be a disaster for the country.
If such a system does exist, which I very much doubt, the legislators would become the captives of the professional public servants in about two weeks.
Oo @ 63 no matter what problems are associated with our present system, they would pale into insignificance compared to a system that entrusted government to a random bunch of people plucked off the street.
Contrary to Hollywood myths, government is actually a highly complex function requiring years of education and preparation to undertake in any kind of competent fashion. A parliament of Steve Fieldings might be entertaining for a few days but it would be a disaster for the country.
If such a system does exist, which I very much doubt, the legislators would become the captives of the professional public servants in about two weeks.
Ken Lovell said:
1. If so, that would be an improvement, or at worst, no worse than we get now. Do you really think the influence of the bureaucracy is worse than the influence of the plutocrats?
2. Properly structured, it would not be so
It would be a thread derail so I’m not going to recapitulate here, but it would be a fairly simple business to ensure that something better than “plucking people off the street” would take place. More importantly, sortition, which is the term for this sort of thing, properly designed, would eventually foster the kind of engaged community that would make governance genuinely inclusive. It is quite wrong to map the culture of the world at is to all possible iterations of the system.
Ken Lovell said:
1. If so, that would be an improvement, or at worst, no worse than we get now. Do you really think the influence of the bureaucracy is worse than the influence of the plutocrats?
2. Properly structured, it would not be so
It would be a thread derail so I’m not going to recapitulate here, but it would be a fairly simple business to ensure that something better than “plucking people off the street” would take place. More importantly, sortition, which is the term for this sort of thing, properly designed, would eventually foster the kind of engaged community that would make governance genuinely inclusive. It is quite wrong to map the culture of the world at is to all possible iterations of the system.
#63 is undemocratic. I don’t want to be governed by a lottery. I also don’t think any sane person would want to emulate the failed states of South America, which is all of them except Chile (thanks to Milton Friedman).
Sorry for going OT.
#63 is undemocratic. I don’t want to be governed by a lottery. I also don’t think any sane person would want to emulate the failed states of South America, which is all of them except Chile (thanks to Milton Friedman).
Sorry for going OT.
Salient
You can win a lottery, especially if winning involves being part of a large pool with a common ticket. It is damn near impossible to win if the boss class gets to decide who can participate and what they can do.
Right now, the boss class has limited participation to two major groupings of professional and fully acculturated career politicians both of which are committed (by different tactics) to … protecting the interests of the boss class.
Most people understand this and so most people don’t go anywhere near participating in political parties or even paying attention to public policy because they quite rightly believe that it is irrelevant on meaningful timelines. They get on with their lives and press the I accept button to signify agreement every three years without reading the political equivalent of the EULA. Really they are victims of generational cultural abuse pretending for a moment that they can consent.
This cultural reality is very handy for the boss class because it means they can keep the grubby hands of working people away from public policy while pretending that this is what most people want, when truthfully, most people have never been seriously asked, and on those occasions when they haven’t liked something that the boss class likes, they have been ignored. This reinforces the policy of exclusive governance. It’s why our major parties are such rubbish.
So I’d prefer a lottery — especially one rigged against the boss class and in favour of rational policy deliberation. I might not get the policies I wanted, but my chances of being happy at the end of it would go from nothing to something, and if the working people started thinking they were relevant, my chances would be better still.
Salient
You can win a lottery, especially if winning involves being part of a large pool with a common ticket. It is damn near impossible to win if the boss class gets to decide who can participate and what they can do.
Right now, the boss class has limited participation to two major groupings of professional and fully acculturated career politicians both of which are committed (by different tactics) to … protecting the interests of the boss class.
Most people understand this and so most people don’t go anywhere near participating in political parties or even paying attention to public policy because they quite rightly believe that it is irrelevant on meaningful timelines. They get on with their lives and press the I accept button to signify agreement every three years without reading the political equivalent of the EULA. Really they are victims of generational cultural abuse pretending for a moment that they can consent.
This cultural reality is very handy for the boss class because it means they can keep the grubby hands of working people away from public policy while pretending that this is what most people want, when truthfully, most people have never been seriously asked, and on those occasions when they haven’t liked something that the boss class likes, they have been ignored. This reinforces the policy of exclusive governance. It’s why our major parties are such rubbish.
So I’d prefer a lottery — especially one rigged against the boss class and in favour of rational policy deliberation. I might not get the policies I wanted, but my chances of being happy at the end of it would go from nothing to something, and if the working people started thinking they were relevant, my chances would be better still.
So Fran, who exactly is a member of the “boss class” in your opinion? Is Gillard, whose background is working class? How exactly do you get to join the “boss class” if it’s closed to ordinary people as you suggest?
So Fran, who exactly is a member of the “boss class” in your opinion? Is Gillard, whose background is working class? How exactly do you get to join the “boss class” if it’s closed to ordinary people as you suggest?
Fran Barlow
A “boss class” rules, eh? I am now keen to review how you saw the events of the last week. Lots of pity for those foolish enough to focus on Labor caucus I am guessing, rather than Twiggy Forest’s throne? Do you know how many ‘bosses’ make up this class? Their secret handshake?
Fran Barlow
A “boss class” rules, eh? I am now keen to review how you saw the events of the last week. Lots of pity for those foolish enough to focus on Labor caucus I am guessing, rather than Twiggy Forest’s throne? Do you know how many ‘bosses’ make up this class? Their secret handshake?
“So Fran, who exactly is a member of the “boss class” in your opinion?”
LOL. This reminds of how I had to put up with reading idiot sociologists like Connell, Playford, Humphreys etc as they tried to explain how the ruling class actually rules back in the early 1980s in uni political science.
I’m a proud lefty but please spare this anti-intellectual dadaism.
“So Fran, who exactly is a member of the “boss class” in your opinion?”
LOL. This reminds of how I had to put up with reading idiot sociologists like Connell, Playford, Humphreys etc as they tried to explain how the ruling class actually rules back in the early 1980s in uni political science.
I’m a proud lefty but please spare this anti-intellectual dadaism.
@salient, was that directed at me or Fran??
@salient, was that directed at me or Fran??
At Fran. Uni gave me an aversion to Marxists
At Fran. Uni gave me an aversion to Marxists
salient
I can still recite almost verbatim Ruling Class, Ruling Culture almost as perfectly as Yes, Virginia, there is a working class.
I read Connell and Irving in 3rd year, and remember saying to my prof, “come on, there’s no such thing as Australian culture, let alone one that evolves dialectically with the ructions of capital and labour.”
He said, “tell me after that you submit that essay on Patrick White and monopoly capitalism, you’ve promised. And boy, did I lay it thick, for them.
When a uni tutor returns a paper full of double ticks next to points that either come from the papers/books of there own or their allies, or which you have so obviously and so uncritically included to pull their pud, you really just have to shake you head.
Anyway, I was right, and Connell ad Irving were deluded if they thought they could so easily squeeze Orstraya into their misanthropic European marxist errors from Gramsci and Althusser.
Still, I am very glad I read it. Suspending empirics, it was an elegant argument. Bit I still loathe Patrick White!
salient
I can still recite almost verbatim Ruling Class, Ruling Culture almost as perfectly as Yes, Virginia, there is a working class.
I read Connell and Irving in 3rd year, and remember saying to my prof, “come on, there’s no such thing as Australian culture, let alone one that evolves dialectically with the ructions of capital and labour.”
He said, “tell me after that you submit that essay on Patrick White and monopoly capitalism, you’ve promised. And boy, did I lay it thick, for them.
When a uni tutor returns a paper full of double ticks next to points that either come from the papers/books of there own or their allies, or which you have so obviously and so uncritically included to pull their pud, you really just have to shake you head.
Anyway, I was right, and Connell ad Irving were deluded if they thought they could so easily squeeze Orstraya into their misanthropic European marxist errors from Gramsci and Althusser.
Still, I am very glad I read it. Suspending empirics, it was an elegant argument. Bit I still loathe Patrick White!
And the original 1897 letter by 8 year old Virginian O’Hanlon, which the New York Sun answered in an editorial “Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus” is a far more profound anthropological text.
http://www.newseum.org/yesvirginia/
And the original 1897 letter by 8 year old Virginian O’Hanlon, which the New York Sun answered in an editorial “Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus” is a far more profound anthropological text.
http://www.newseum.org/yesvirginia/
Ok, I understand it may be laboring (sorry) the point but I am really curious what creates this Boss Class? How big is it? How does one get into it? Is it a birth thing? Can you work your way in? Is it only private sector or is it public as well? Can you be poor and boss class because you vote the worng way? If you have significant influence over the election process does that automatically make you boss class or only if you meet some other pass go stage. If a corp can be boss class (I assume they can) then can a union? What about the people inside that corp or union?
It all seems very vague..
Ok, I understand it may be laboring (sorry) the point but I am really curious what creates this Boss Class? How big is it? How does one get into it? Is it a birth thing? Can you work your way in? Is it only private sector or is it public as well? Can you be poor and boss class because you vote the worng way? If you have significant influence over the election process does that automatically make you boss class or only if you meet some other pass go stage. If a corp can be boss class (I assume they can) then can a union? What about the people inside that corp or union?
It all seems very vague..
Heh the spontaneous mocking of the idea that Australia has a ruling class is (a) predictable and (b) uninformed. I suggest, however, that alternative propositions (participative democracy, anarchy etc) are far more risible.
Displays of undergraduate erudition notwithstanding, the concept of a ruling class in which power is concentrated in a comparatively small number of people by means of wealth or institutional connections is not necessarily associated with any particular ideology or sociological theory. It’s an empirically verifiable observation about our society.
Heh the spontaneous mocking of the idea that Australia has a ruling class is (a) predictable and (b) uninformed. I suggest, however, that alternative propositions (participative democracy, anarchy etc) are far more risible.
Displays of undergraduate erudition notwithstanding, the concept of a ruling class in which power is concentrated in a comparatively small number of people by means of wealth or institutional connections is not necessarily associated with any particular ideology or sociological theory. It’s an empirically verifiable observation about our society.
As an aside, Bobby Connell quit the ALP when Keating took over. And Ossie, it was “Yes, Virginia, there is a ruling class”. It was useful reading that stuff but it was so obviously wrong one can only shake one’s head and wonder how supposedly educated folk took it seriously.
As an aside, Bobby Connell quit the ALP when Keating took over. And Ossie, it was “Yes, Virginia, there is a ruling class”. It was useful reading that stuff but it was so obviously wrong one can only shake one’s head and wonder how supposedly educated folk took it seriously.
Ken Lovell says:
“Displays of undergraduate erudition notwithstanding, the concept of a ruling class in which power is concentrated in a comparatively small number of people by means of wealth or institutional connections is not necessarily associated with any particular ideology or sociological theory. ”
You’ve confused power with influence, champ.
Ken Lovell says:
“Displays of undergraduate erudition notwithstanding, the concept of a ruling class in which power is concentrated in a comparatively small number of people by means of wealth or institutional connections is not necessarily associated with any particular ideology or sociological theory. ”
You’ve confused power with influence, champ.
The boss class — those who live by trade in the labour power of others … pretty simple really.
Within the class, there are divisions over policy, which reflect their sectional interests — which is why there is more than one ruling party. Yet there is a consensus about the boundaries for acceptable policy discussion, based on the apparent inviolability of private property rights, rights of exploitation etc.
There’s also a consensus that whereas traders in labour power need incentives to make their trade worthwhile, those who sell their own need to be paid the minimum necessary in order to get them to work more productively or even at all.
There is a consensus that while they don’t trust each other enough to do away with a state apparatus completely, by and large the business of the state is to clear away obstacles to business growing as fast as it may at the expense of people who surrender the labour power they trade in.
That’s why the political rule of the boss class is not really a conspiracy. They all know where their basic interests lie and where debate can be allowed to stray without every needing to touch bases.
The mining tax debate was an interesting example of this. While it probably wasn’t the case that the entire boss class had the same investment in defeating the government of the day on this — some probably were quite sympathetic to the principle, those that were stayed silent or only offered the most tepid of objections to the commentary from the Minerals Council, even though this would possibly mean their tax cut would vanish. A weak state was in their broader interest, and perhaps after one defeat, they could secure another at the public expense.
It was also no surprise that the press largely fell into line. They stood to gain revenue from the stoush and they are very marginal operations right now. And with the ABC reduced to rip and read, they also had no place to go but with the loudest elements of the commercial press.
When Gillard essentially caves into the mining thugs, we will again be reminded both of where the boss class has drawn the line and who is really its dominant fraction. Of course we knew that from the behaviour of Rudd over the ETS.
Abbott of course has pitched himself as their inflatable sex toy, offering total victory to the most aggressive of these thugs, and we are yet to see if the boss class will prefer that to what Gillard’s offering.
What is clear though is that at no point will a discussion of the public policy merits of a fair division of the value of resources be permitted to enter the election campaign. This is, after all, the entire point of Gillard cutting the kind of deal with the criminals in question that preserves the fiction of democratic government.
The boss class — those who live by trade in the labour power of others … pretty simple really.
Within the class, there are divisions over policy, which reflect their sectional interests — which is why there is more than one ruling party. Yet there is a consensus about the boundaries for acceptable policy discussion, based on the apparent inviolability of private property rights, rights of exploitation etc.
There’s also a consensus that whereas traders in labour power need incentives to make their trade worthwhile, those who sell their own need to be paid the minimum necessary in order to get them to work more productively or even at all.
There is a consensus that while they don’t trust each other enough to do away with a state apparatus completely, by and large the business of the state is to clear away obstacles to business growing as fast as it may at the expense of people who surrender the labour power they trade in.
That’s why the political rule of the boss class is not really a conspiracy. They all know where their basic interests lie and where debate can be allowed to stray without every needing to touch bases.
The mining tax debate was an interesting example of this. While it probably wasn’t the case that the entire boss class had the same investment in defeating the government of the day on this — some probably were quite sympathetic to the principle, those that were stayed silent or only offered the most tepid of objections to the commentary from the Minerals Council, even though this would possibly mean their tax cut would vanish. A weak state was in their broader interest, and perhaps after one defeat, they could secure another at the public expense.
It was also no surprise that the press largely fell into line. They stood to gain revenue from the stoush and they are very marginal operations right now. And with the ABC reduced to rip and read, they also had no place to go but with the loudest elements of the commercial press.
When Gillard essentially caves into the mining thugs, we will again be reminded both of where the boss class has drawn the line and who is really its dominant fraction. Of course we knew that from the behaviour of Rudd over the ETS.
Abbott of course has pitched himself as their inflatable sex toy, offering total victory to the most aggressive of these thugs, and we are yet to see if the boss class will prefer that to what Gillard’s offering.
What is clear though is that at no point will a discussion of the public policy merits of a fair division of the value of resources be permitted to enter the election campaign. This is, after all, the entire point of Gillard cutting the kind of deal with the criminals in question that preserves the fiction of democratic government.
Ossie@69
Didn’t you read what I said?
Ossie@69
Didn’t you read what I said?
It is good to read discussion of the recent events that gets away from personality politics. I think what happened does undermine confidence in the political process, and in a positive political culture. The 2007 election was the first to really encourage people to connect to the campaign using new media, too, as has happened in the US with Obama – could this have given people a sense of ownership of the change in govt? Even though lots of people were disillusioned with what was happening, the sudden change was very disconcerting. As others have said here, the campaign was defacto presidential. People thought they were voting for a particular leader. It doesn’t matter whether you ‘like’ the alternative leader or not. I agree that these are serious issues not to be fobbed off. It sets a worrying precedent.
It is good to read discussion of the recent events that gets away from personality politics. I think what happened does undermine confidence in the political process, and in a positive political culture. The 2007 election was the first to really encourage people to connect to the campaign using new media, too, as has happened in the US with Obama – could this have given people a sense of ownership of the change in govt? Even though lots of people were disillusioned with what was happening, the sudden change was very disconcerting. As others have said here, the campaign was defacto presidential. People thought they were voting for a particular leader. It doesn’t matter whether you ‘like’ the alternative leader or not. I agree that these are serious issues not to be fobbed off. It sets a worrying precedent.
salient
What a Freudian slip! Still, at the time I was mesmerized by the whole thing. Whoever knew, we were actually an annexe of the Soviet Union, lucky not to be eating grass during the “current crisis of capitalism,” which I kid you not is STILL ‘current’!
To be fair, I am very grateful for the way that part of that my undergrad taught to think more systematically, especially about structure. Pity that the cognitive structures did not justify their politics. Unwashed, dirty-nailed Trots and Sandalistas, they were. Oh, and the lectures disturbed by some urchin skulking in some misery trinket or t’other.
I remember one lecture, a renowned right-wing college student yelled out, “why don’t you just kill yourself now, you miserable sod.” He was asked to leave the lecture. Not sure what happened to the sod. Probably an MD at Macquarie Bank.
Having said that, as any of old tutors and lecturers who might be reading will attest, by about July of 1st year, I was laughing my head off at how these silly old-fossils could be so earnest about this obvious balderdash. Did the likes of Frank Stilwell, Ted Weelwrights, and Evan Jones ever darken your lecture theatre? The greatest reasons against tenure still alive.
But I will say, if I had not taken some grad degrees to develop skills to annihilate that nursery school fraud, I would be more disappointed at my undergrad education than I actually am.
salient
What a Freudian slip! Still, at the time I was mesmerized by the whole thing. Whoever knew, we were actually an annexe of the Soviet Union, lucky not to be eating grass during the “current crisis of capitalism,” which I kid you not is STILL ‘current’!
To be fair, I am very grateful for the way that part of that my undergrad taught to think more systematically, especially about structure. Pity that the cognitive structures did not justify their politics. Unwashed, dirty-nailed Trots and Sandalistas, they were. Oh, and the lectures disturbed by some urchin skulking in some misery trinket or t’other.
I remember one lecture, a renowned right-wing college student yelled out, “why don’t you just kill yourself now, you miserable sod.” He was asked to leave the lecture. Not sure what happened to the sod. Probably an MD at Macquarie Bank.
Having said that, as any of old tutors and lecturers who might be reading will attest, by about July of 1st year, I was laughing my head off at how these silly old-fossils could be so earnest about this obvious balderdash. Did the likes of Frank Stilwell, Ted Weelwrights, and Evan Jones ever darken your lecture theatre? The greatest reasons against tenure still alive.
But I will say, if I had not taken some grad degrees to develop skills to annihilate that nursery school fraud, I would be more disappointed at my undergrad education than I actually am.
I promise everyone … the text below is not mine (no pun intended):
Time for miner adjustments?
A deal would have to be documented in a way that locked Gillard in irrevocably if Labor is returned so that it couldn’t be reneged on or fundamentally altered post-election, whatever demands the Greens might make and no matter how loudly those who were going to profit from all those RSPT-funded pre-election goodies at the expense of the miners, their shareholders and their employees might howl.
With her credibility, rather than Kevin Rudd’s or Wayne Swan’s at stake, and having seen how damaging the ill-conceived RSPT has been for her party and the nation, however, one wouldn’t expect Gillard to do too many post-election back-flips.
I promise everyone … the text below is not mine (no pun intended):
Time for miner adjustments?
A deal would have to be documented in a way that locked Gillard in irrevocably if Labor is returned so that it couldn’t be reneged on or fundamentally altered post-election, whatever demands the Greens might make and no matter how loudly those who were going to profit from all those RSPT-funded pre-election goodies at the expense of the miners, their shareholders and their employees might howl.
With her credibility, rather than Kevin Rudd’s or Wayne Swan’s at stake, and having seen how damaging the ill-conceived RSPT has been for her party and the nation, however, one wouldn’t expect Gillard to do too many post-election back-flips.
Gillard is watering down the RSPT because the electorate rejected it, esp in WA. (I also note that women were much more opposed to the RSPT than men according to Newspoll, a fact that our resident uber-feminists have conveniently chosen to ignore.)
Governments can and do override the “interests” of the “ruling class” when the voters are on side, for example min wage and OHS laws.
Gillard is watering down the RSPT because the electorate rejected it, esp in WA. (I also note that women were much more opposed to the RSPT than men according to Newspoll, a fact that our resident uber-feminists have conveniently chosen to ignore.)
Governments can and do override the “interests” of the “ruling class” when the voters are on side, for example min wage and OHS laws.
@Fran, “The boss class — those who live by trade in the labour power of others … pretty simple really.”
Is the owner of a small struggling publishing house part of the “boss class” because they might make money from my writing? They’re trading in the labour power of others, aren’t they? So’s my local bookshop, come to think of it. Clearly the evil overlords…
How about my greengrocer? He’s trading in the labour of the people who actually grow the food. I can’t wait to tell him he’s part of the political elite.
Your local pizza shop, bloated plutocrats that they are, are probably trading in the labour of those hapless pizza delivery guys, not to mention the fifteen-year-old kid on the counter.
All hail the boss class.
On the other hand, it’s just the teensiest bit possible that your ideas are a leeettle out-dated and although I acknowledge that privilege (including but not limited to class privilege) plays a pretty big role in where people end up in life, it’s not actually the only factor. There are plenty of people from struggling working class backgrounds in politics – on both sides – to contradict your outdated Marxist dichotomy.
@Fran, “The boss class — those who live by trade in the labour power of others … pretty simple really.”
Is the owner of a small struggling publishing house part of the “boss class” because they might make money from my writing? They’re trading in the labour power of others, aren’t they? So’s my local bookshop, come to think of it. Clearly the evil overlords…
How about my greengrocer? He’s trading in the labour of the people who actually grow the food. I can’t wait to tell him he’s part of the political elite.
Your local pizza shop, bloated plutocrats that they are, are probably trading in the labour of those hapless pizza delivery guys, not to mention the fifteen-year-old kid on the counter.
All hail the boss class.
On the other hand, it’s just the teensiest bit possible that your ideas are a leeettle out-dated and although I acknowledge that privilege (including but not limited to class privilege) plays a pretty big role in where people end up in life, it’s not actually the only factor. There are plenty of people from struggling working class backgrounds in politics – on both sides – to contradict your outdated Marxist dichotomy.
Oigal, Ossie, your questions about the existence of a Boss Class are amusing. If you would like to devise an experiment to find out whether crocodiles exist, go for a walk by an NT creek. And if you would like to know whether or not a Boss Class exists, try doing something that is against their interests.
Alternatively, please put forward your theory to explain the present distribution of wealth, power and influence in Australia. (Hint: “stuff happens” is not a theory, it’s a null hypothesis. Double-hint: Suggestions that it’s all a primal and pure meritocracy, red in tooth and claw, will be met with howls and snorts of derision).
Oigal, Ossie, your questions about the existence of a Boss Class are amusing. If you would like to devise an experiment to find out whether crocodiles exist, go for a walk by an NT creek. And if you would like to know whether or not a Boss Class exists, try doing something that is against their interests.
Alternatively, please put forward your theory to explain the present distribution of wealth, power and influence in Australia. (Hint: “stuff happens” is not a theory, it’s a null hypothesis. Double-hint: Suggestions that it’s all a primal and pure meritocracy, red in tooth and claw, will be met with howls and snorts of derision).
Fran
Come on. You’re trying to tart up the old capital/labor and prole/capitalist dialectic. It’s a crock.
Fran
Come on. You’re trying to tart up the old capital/labor and prole/capitalist dialectic. It’s a crock.
FRan
That doesn’t mean I am denying structure per se, let alone its corollary structural inequity.
FRan
That doesn’t mean I am denying structure per se, let alone its corollary structural inequity.
Mercurius says: “Oigal, Ossie, your questions about the existence of a Boss Class are amusing…. ”
Obviously you haven’t heard of pluralist, elitist and non-Marxist conflict theories of politics.
Mercurius says: “Oigal, Ossie, your questions about the existence of a Boss Class are amusing…. ”
Obviously you haven’t heard of pluralist, elitist and non-Marxist conflict theories of politics.
Oops that should be elite not elitist.
Oops that should be elite not elitist.
And seeing as it has now descended into intellectual wankery and academic snobbery, I think I will take my leave from this thread.
And seeing as it has now descended into intellectual wankery and academic snobbery, I think I will take my leave from this thread.
anthony nolan
Fixing on the entire globe, and its humanity, as a perfectly integrated system of class oppression, which if you could kust find the right size tool – voila, dictatorship of the proletariat will send you blind and/or barmy.
My focus is three-fold:
1. Strong, transparent, and stable institutions of Australian governance, whose legitimacy is obvious among the citizenry. My pet project at that moment is disempowering the prime minister’s role, partly via a popularly-elected president, whose few powers include some ability to clip te PM over the ear, next time they deign that it is their decision alone t invade Iraq!.
Next, open up a dual system of electing representatives to the lower house. The existing system, and another general non-electoral selection of the same number.
My dream for the senate is to make it like the Athenian assembly, chosen party by vote, and partly by sortition. Any citizen refusing to sit in the senate when drawn by lot would be ostracised for a year, the selfish git.
2. A more radical and direct democracy than we have now, which would involve things like voting be seen as more a rfesponsibility than a ‘right’
3. Intense policy focus on how much money the bottom 30% or so have to live on, making sure it is:
(a) never too low;
(b) not passed on as a birth right.
I have come to the conclusion that for me the single most important metric is how much money do the bottom 30% of Australians have to spend every week. I am coming around to the idea of a legislated formula. I have pretty much concluded that while money not be everything; poverty is.
It might sound vulgar, but I’ll cop that. There is nothing worse for a poor person, when he runs out of Monday on Tuesday every week, yet he doesn’t get paid till Friday.
We are too rich to stand for that.
anthony nolan
Fixing on the entire globe, and its humanity, as a perfectly integrated system of class oppression, which if you could kust find the right size tool – voila, dictatorship of the proletariat will send you blind and/or barmy.
My focus is three-fold:
1. Strong, transparent, and stable institutions of Australian governance, whose legitimacy is obvious among the citizenry. My pet project at that moment is disempowering the prime minister’s role, partly via a popularly-elected president, whose few powers include some ability to clip te PM over the ear, next time they deign that it is their decision alone t invade Iraq!.
Next, open up a dual system of electing representatives to the lower house. The existing system, and another general non-electoral selection of the same number.
My dream for the senate is to make it like the Athenian assembly, chosen party by vote, and partly by sortition. Any citizen refusing to sit in the senate when drawn by lot would be ostracised for a year, the selfish git.
2. A more radical and direct democracy than we have now, which would involve things like voting be seen as more a rfesponsibility than a ‘right’
3. Intense policy focus on how much money the bottom 30% or so have to live on, making sure it is:
(a) never too low;
(b) not passed on as a birth right.
I have come to the conclusion that for me the single most important metric is how much money do the bottom 30% of Australians have to spend every week. I am coming around to the idea of a legislated formula. I have pretty much concluded that while money not be everything; poverty is.
It might sound vulgar, but I’ll cop that. There is nothing worse for a poor person, when he runs out of Monday on Tuesday every week, yet he doesn’t get paid till Friday.
We are too rich to stand for that.
AEC supervision of political party preselection would be an shift of earthquake proportions – indeed it calls to mind Guy Rundles’ recent prescient commentary about future rumblings under the Australian political landscape.
AEC supervision of political party preselection would be an shift of earthquake proportions – indeed it calls to mind Guy Rundles’ recent prescient commentary about future rumblings under the Australian political landscape.
Fascinated
With one eye on the US and UK, I am proud of our AEC. But in my book it has reached the end of its powers.
Back in its box.
Fascinated
With one eye on the US and UK, I am proud of our AEC. But in my book it has reached the end of its powers.
Back in its box.
And the poster these critics are responding to is normally very slippery with the Markist/Marxian analogies.
I read Fran Barlow as possibly referring to party factional bosses, not necessarily capitalist bosses, @ 67. It’s only later she goes the whole socialist hog.
If this is all a continuation of the debate over the process by which our new PM ascended then congratulations Gillard Project loyalists, you’re got to the point of thirty years ago where Hawke and his circle were annunciating a post-socialist yet social reformist ideology.
Reinventing the wheel like that isn’t just a matter for my amusement. I reckon it shows a strange detachment from any party and movement culture beyond who’s up and who’s down. How prevalent is this in Team G?
IMHO this is the main reason for the discontent over the transition. Nobody outside of the factional boyos have thought through the need to stress that ideological and culural mores are being continued under the new leadership, just as they ever were.
Julia Gillard is going to need Ellises and Freudenbergs and Watsons to help craft a narrative about how she’s bringing all true believers with her, yet all I’ve seen so far is declarations for the true believers to summon up enthusiasm for Julia being the same old Julia she ever was, and doncha know that’s good enough?
I’m almost certainly attributing too much intellectual relevance to the Leader’s spruikers here, but I don’t like having this dread that we’ve got a Labor PM in 2010 who will struggle to create a rationale for her leadership beyond appealing to middle class Leftliberalism, opinion polls, and party insider tummy-rubbing.
Still early days, but this means serious work at the top after the honeymoon period finishes, if not sooner.
And the poster these critics are responding to is normally very slippery with the Markist/Marxian analogies.
I read Fran Barlow as possibly referring to party factional bosses, not necessarily capitalist bosses, @ 67. It’s only later she goes the whole socialist hog.
If this is all a continuation of the debate over the process by which our new PM ascended then congratulations Gillard Project loyalists, you’re got to the point of thirty years ago where Hawke and his circle were annunciating a post-socialist yet social reformist ideology.
Reinventing the wheel like that isn’t just a matter for my amusement. I reckon it shows a strange detachment from any party and movement culture beyond who’s up and who’s down. How prevalent is this in Team G?
IMHO this is the main reason for the discontent over the transition. Nobody outside of the factional boyos have thought through the need to stress that ideological and culural mores are being continued under the new leadership, just as they ever were.
Julia Gillard is going to need Ellises and Freudenbergs and Watsons to help craft a narrative about how she’s bringing all true believers with her, yet all I’ve seen so far is declarations for the true believers to summon up enthusiasm for Julia being the same old Julia she ever was, and doncha know that’s good enough?
I’m almost certainly attributing too much intellectual relevance to the Leader’s spruikers here, but I don’t like having this dread that we’ve got a Labor PM in 2010 who will struggle to create a rationale for her leadership beyond appealing to middle class Leftliberalism, opinion polls, and party insider tummy-rubbing.
Still early days, but this means serious work at the top after the honeymoon period finishes, if not sooner.
Ken
Care to point out these “spontaneous mockings” and when you predicted them?
I would for one would be grateful for the benefit of your superior info?
Ken
Care to point out these “spontaneous mockings” and when you predicted them?
I would for one would be grateful for the benefit of your superior info?
Ossie I’m sure I speak for us all when I say I am in awe of your sophisticated contributions to the discussion, which frankly leave me embarrassed at my own clumsy efforts.
Your sensible, achievable proposals @ 92 are clearly the way forward for Australia and I deeply regret my earlier implication that you are an immature prat.
Good luck with your pet project ossie. I just know it’s been thoroughly planned and success will only be a matter of time. Let me know if $2 will help and I’ll send a postal order. And keep daring to dream, dude!!
Ossie I’m sure I speak for us all when I say I am in awe of your sophisticated contributions to the discussion, which frankly leave me embarrassed at my own clumsy efforts.
Your sensible, achievable proposals @ 92 are clearly the way forward for Australia and I deeply regret my earlier implication that you are an immature prat.
Good luck with your pet project ossie. I just know it’s been thoroughly planned and success will only be a matter of time. Let me know if $2 will help and I’ll send a postal order. And keep daring to dream, dude!!
Why thank you. That’s very kind of you? $2?? Oh well, if that’s all you can spare, every little bit helps.
Why thank you. That’s very kind of you? $2?? Oh well, if that’s all you can spare, every little bit helps.
Rebekka offered the following:
Oh dear Rebekka. Having asked questions to which you didn’t really want answers, and having begun with genteel condescension, you decide that when they start coming, what you need is the firm embrace of plebeian authenticity, the better to resist those arrogant intellectual elites.
Let nobody accuse you on no’ learnin’ or cipherin’ … no sirree Bob.
Others should know however, that affectation is not the exlusive privilege of elites.
Rebekka offered the following:
Oh dear Rebekka. Having asked questions to which you didn’t really want answers, and having begun with genteel condescension, you decide that when they start coming, what you need is the firm embrace of plebeian authenticity, the better to resist those arrogant intellectual elites.
Let nobody accuse you on no’ learnin’ or cipherin’ … no sirree Bob.
Others should know however, that affectation is not the exlusive privilege of elites.
NickWS observed:
Well, you read wrongly, and that is scarcely as a result of anything I wrote @67, or have written before. It was unambiguous.
NickWS observed:
Well, you read wrongly, and that is scarcely as a result of anything I wrote @67, or have written before. It was unambiguous.
Actually Nick, “good enough” is a relative thing.
For example, while I think Gillard will be a more effective leader than Rudd, I by no means think she is the second coming.
Labor has struggled to build a coherent narrative for governing ever since the electorate passed its verdict on the Keating era. Labor state governments over the past decade or so have more or less have done whatever it has taken to stay in government, with deep reforms of any type a rarity.
Federal Labor has cycled through 5 leaders since Keating and all manner of pseudo-narratives. Beazley’s opposition to the GST under the banner of fairness. Latham’s ladder of opportunity. Rudd’s education revolution, climate change as moral challenge and a fairer workplace. Countless policies have come, with much fanfare, and then disappeared just as quickly as the political cycle has moved on.
Rudd promised much, had the opportunity to govern, but struggled to weave a common thread through all his initiatives. Did his critique of neoliberalism mean anything? If so, where did the critique lead?
What principles does Labor stand for so firmly that it is prepared to lose government to defend? It is pretty clear that Labor is prepared to screw over asylum seekers, the climate and a fair few equity goals to keep a hold of government. Caught between the talking points of the right and its fear of the electorate’s innate conservatism Labor reverts to selling itself as a slightly more forward looking, slightly more socially liberal, slightly more economically interventionist version of the conservatives. Is that the best Labor can do?
As far as I can make out, Gillard is simply (we hope) a more competent, consultative leader in broadly the same mould of every ALP leader since Keating. She can probably be relied on to win the next election, thereby preventing Abbott from doing his worse. That is probably worth something. But I won’t be holding my breath waiting for a reimagination of the Labor project.
Btw, Labor’s philosphical struggles aren’t that much different to most centre-left parties in the OECD.
Actually Nick, “good enough” is a relative thing.
For example, while I think Gillard will be a more effective leader than Rudd, I by no means think she is the second coming.
Labor has struggled to build a coherent narrative for governing ever since the electorate passed its verdict on the Keating era. Labor state governments over the past decade or so have more or less have done whatever it has taken to stay in government, with deep reforms of any type a rarity.
Federal Labor has cycled through 5 leaders since Keating and all manner of pseudo-narratives. Beazley’s opposition to the GST under the banner of fairness. Latham’s ladder of opportunity. Rudd’s education revolution, climate change as moral challenge and a fairer workplace. Countless policies have come, with much fanfare, and then disappeared just as quickly as the political cycle has moved on.
Rudd promised much, had the opportunity to govern, but struggled to weave a common thread through all his initiatives. Did his critique of neoliberalism mean anything? If so, where did the critique lead?
What principles does Labor stand for so firmly that it is prepared to lose government to defend? It is pretty clear that Labor is prepared to screw over asylum seekers, the climate and a fair few equity goals to keep a hold of government. Caught between the talking points of the right and its fear of the electorate’s innate conservatism Labor reverts to selling itself as a slightly more forward looking, slightly more socially liberal, slightly more economically interventionist version of the conservatives. Is that the best Labor can do?
As far as I can make out, Gillard is simply (we hope) a more competent, consultative leader in broadly the same mould of every ALP leader since Keating. She can probably be relied on to win the next election, thereby preventing Abbott from doing his worse. That is probably worth something. But I won’t be holding my breath waiting for a reimagination of the Labor project.
Btw, Labor’s philosphical struggles aren’t that much different to most centre-left parties in the OECD.
“Is that the best Labor can do?”
Yes it is, because as you suggest, Australians are innately conservative. Change can only come about thru baby steps.
But at least we’ve now got paid parental leave. That is a major part of the social democratic agenda and I’m surprised all the glum bots aren’t giving Labor more credit for this historic breakthrough.
“Is that the best Labor can do?”
Yes it is, because as you suggest, Australians are innately conservative. Change can only come about thru baby steps.
But at least we’ve now got paid parental leave. That is a major part of the social democratic agenda and I’m surprised all the glum bots aren’t giving Labor more credit for this historic breakthrough.
I think Labor should reboot its original purpose. It should focus on those it directly represents and are financial members. Others who have decided not to join can look after themselves. and kick out all the splitters. The one thing they should focus on is money. money. and more momney
This focus on money for the lower orders should be aimed at their being to buy nice clothes occasionally go on o/s holidays, eat out, and so on.
This should be achieved by two ways:
(i)A massive revivavl of unionism, based not on trades, or workplaces, but on wealth level.
(ii) Legislation. Underclasses should be illegal, and other government seen as ignoring evidence that one is emerging, and does not quash it immediately, should result in the immediate dissolution of parliament.
The ALP should be devoted make sure Australia’s least rich, educated, and capable get a lot of money.
Those families which are a disgrace whether through their own deed or not, should be targeted to make sure their kids do not pay the intergenerational price.
There is no need to stigmatize the toothless, ignorant, and poor. But we must respect our limits within one generation. Give them a set of dentures, some new threads, and make sure they’ve got enough cash to live properly, and feel they belong.
Must they be forced to work? I suppose we should insist ALL citizens have a minimum armory of skills, abilities, and social skills. Eating with your mouth open needs to be classified as a mental health problem.
If the employment situation is otherwise fine, why make the lower orders work. But tell them if they make a nuisance of themselves, they get no more money and get ostracized.
I think Labor should reboot its original purpose. It should focus on those it directly represents and are financial members. Others who have decided not to join can look after themselves. and kick out all the splitters. The one thing they should focus on is money. money. and more momney
This focus on money for the lower orders should be aimed at their being to buy nice clothes occasionally go on o/s holidays, eat out, and so on.
This should be achieved by two ways:
(i)A massive revivavl of unionism, based not on trades, or workplaces, but on wealth level.
(ii) Legislation. Underclasses should be illegal, and other government seen as ignoring evidence that one is emerging, and does not quash it immediately, should result in the immediate dissolution of parliament.
The ALP should be devoted make sure Australia’s least rich, educated, and capable get a lot of money.
Those families which are a disgrace whether through their own deed or not, should be targeted to make sure their kids do not pay the intergenerational price.
There is no need to stigmatize the toothless, ignorant, and poor. But we must respect our limits within one generation. Give them a set of dentures, some new threads, and make sure they’ve got enough cash to live properly, and feel they belong.
Must they be forced to work? I suppose we should insist ALL citizens have a minimum armory of skills, abilities, and social skills. Eating with your mouth open needs to be classified as a mental health problem.
If the employment situation is otherwise fine, why make the lower orders work. But tell them if they make a nuisance of themselves, they get no more money and get ostracized.
I had to go out this morning, but I can’t let this one from Ken @ 48 pass:
I can’t remember much about Labor Party politics in the 1950s, but I do remember Arthur Calwell and Gough Whitlam in 1963 waiting under a lamp post outside the Kingston Hotel while for three full days and into the night 36 faceless men being the ALP National Executive decided whether or not the parliamentary party, their party, should support the construction of the US North-west Cape communications facility.
The full story is fascinating. Alan Reid whose interventionist journalism changed history only called them 36 “virtually unknown men”. Menzies capitalised with the phrase “36 faceless men”, which has stuck.
Seriously, we are not back there.
BTW I can’t google up the famous photograph. You’d think it would be somewhere on teh internets.
I had to go out this morning, but I can’t let this one from Ken @ 48 pass:
I can’t remember much about Labor Party politics in the 1950s, but I do remember Arthur Calwell and Gough Whitlam in 1963 waiting under a lamp post outside the Kingston Hotel while for three full days and into the night 36 faceless men being the ALP National Executive decided whether or not the parliamentary party, their party, should support the construction of the US North-west Cape communications facility.
The full story is fascinating. Alan Reid whose interventionist journalism changed history only called them 36 “virtually unknown men”. Menzies capitalised with the phrase “36 faceless men”, which has stuck.
Seriously, we are not back there.
BTW I can’t google up the famous photograph. You’d think it would be somewhere on teh internets.
I’ve come to believe there are two major tendencies that can be given credit for the rise of Gillard—the always very obvious social progressives, and the more complicated managerialist insider types. A small cohort of both groups were behind her in the party numbers game, and the greater bulk of people who associate with these two streams are behind her in the broader world of Labor politics, as well as in the general community. I give this alliance credit for being doers. That’s one reason why I’m hopeful for the election—nothing breeds success like success.
However, LO, the fact remains that many Labor enthusiasts have a loyalty to a certain idea of the party and movement. The party is a movement to them.
Notice how I’m not arguing that modern parliametary Labor are sellouts, that they’ve been on the wrong side of the movement since 1949 or 1970 or 1983 or whenever it is the typical Leftlabour martyr puts the date of the great betrayal. ‘Cos I’ve never argued the ALP are sellouts. And I never argue for the continuing existence of good old fashioned working class politics, as I know that can’t be revived in toto and must therefore be consigned to be the historical basis of the party.
I’d argue that Kevin Rudd came to the leadership because he appealed to these historical ideals of both movement and party through his political scalping of the Coalition in the AWB scandal. Sure, he wasn’t really resposible for any of the substance in all that, but he represented the greatest fightback in the halls of power against the divisive, warloving beliefs of the Liberals, since, well possible ever. He redeemed a century of Labor foreign policy pragmatism and pacifism.
That’s a big call, but I’m willing to make it. Kevin Rudd as a mere shadow foreign affairs spokesman made a remarkable, historical, masterful appeal to Labor Movement traditions. It might have been pure happenstance, but somehow he set himself up as a man who just might become a modern party icon. A shadow minister no less.
Yadda yadda yadda it’s all since fallen in a heap, I know that, and I’m not daft enough to argue otherwise. I can be critical of why it’s fallen in a heap, that it didn’t have to be this way, of how certain forces haven’t been very constructive. Yet there’s nothing I can do, except hope I’m right about Gillard’s potential.
However right now I sense Gillard has to start working twice as hard as Rudd did in ’07 to appeal to the traditions of party and movement. She has to remake herself as much as Keating did when he became PM. It doesn’t matter that Rudd never had to remake himself much after he knifed Beazley, partly because of his then status I mentioned above, though mostly because knifing old Beazley in Dec, 2006, was not as unprecedented as knifing 1st Term Incumbent PM in June, 2010.
Neither managerial competence nor forward looking social values are enough to, as you put it, create a coherent narrative for leadership. There’s those damn movement traditions which must be reconciled first. And no Right faction boss or Emily’s List chairperson can do that on behalf of the new PM.
I could have written a condensed version of this post thus: Julia Gillard must expand her appeal, she has no other choice, there is more trust to build, it doesn’t matter if the one or two groups who most support her thinks otherwise, she must earn the privilege she admits she’s been given as Leader, and she must do it in the (somewhat) old manner the Labor ‘Movement’ is accustomed to.
I’ve come to believe there are two major tendencies that can be given credit for the rise of Gillard—the always very obvious social progressives, and the more complicated managerialist insider types. A small cohort of both groups were behind her in the party numbers game, and the greater bulk of people who associate with these two streams are behind her in the broader world of Labor politics, as well as in the general community. I give this alliance credit for being doers. That’s one reason why I’m hopeful for the election—nothing breeds success like success.
However, LO, the fact remains that many Labor enthusiasts have a loyalty to a certain idea of the party and movement. The party is a movement to them.
Notice how I’m not arguing that modern parliametary Labor are sellouts, that they’ve been on the wrong side of the movement since 1949 or 1970 or 1983 or whenever it is the typical Leftlabour martyr puts the date of the great betrayal. ‘Cos I’ve never argued the ALP are sellouts. And I never argue for the continuing existence of good old fashioned working class politics, as I know that can’t be revived in toto and must therefore be consigned to be the historical basis of the party.
I’d argue that Kevin Rudd came to the leadership because he appealed to these historical ideals of both movement and party through his political scalping of the Coalition in the AWB scandal. Sure, he wasn’t really resposible for any of the substance in all that, but he represented the greatest fightback in the halls of power against the divisive, warloving beliefs of the Liberals, since, well possible ever. He redeemed a century of Labor foreign policy pragmatism and pacifism.
That’s a big call, but I’m willing to make it. Kevin Rudd as a mere shadow foreign affairs spokesman made a remarkable, historical, masterful appeal to Labor Movement traditions. It might have been pure happenstance, but somehow he set himself up as a man who just might become a modern party icon. A shadow minister no less.
Yadda yadda yadda it’s all since fallen in a heap, I know that, and I’m not daft enough to argue otherwise. I can be critical of why it’s fallen in a heap, that it didn’t have to be this way, of how certain forces haven’t been very constructive. Yet there’s nothing I can do, except hope I’m right about Gillard’s potential.
However right now I sense Gillard has to start working twice as hard as Rudd did in ’07 to appeal to the traditions of party and movement. She has to remake herself as much as Keating did when he became PM. It doesn’t matter that Rudd never had to remake himself much after he knifed Beazley, partly because of his then status I mentioned above, though mostly because knifing old Beazley in Dec, 2006, was not as unprecedented as knifing 1st Term Incumbent PM in June, 2010.
Neither managerial competence nor forward looking social values are enough to, as you put it, create a coherent narrative for leadership. There’s those damn movement traditions which must be reconciled first. And no Right faction boss or Emily’s List chairperson can do that on behalf of the new PM.
I could have written a condensed version of this post thus: Julia Gillard must expand her appeal, she has no other choice, there is more trust to build, it doesn’t matter if the one or two groups who most support her thinks otherwise, she must earn the privilege she admits she’s been given as Leader, and she must do it in the (somewhat) old manner the Labor ‘Movement’ is accustomed to.
Interesting analysis Nick. And somewhat ironic given that Rudd is probably the least “of the movement” leader (well, perhaps Latham as well) that Labor has had in its history. Perhaps AWB gave Rudd movement cred, but it was more a matter of him being in the right place at the right time. The only alternative to Rudd from the right was Swan, and he was supporting Beazley. It was a pragmatic decision to hand the leadership to him, and internally there were a lot of misgivings.
I guess you might respond by arguing that I’m confusing the movement with those that control power within the party. But it is more than that. Kevin had little background in, or interest in the union movement at all. When I was working for him it was pretty clear that some of the response to WorkChoices was the price of the support for his leadership.
And I also wonder whether Rudd’s immense early popularity was precisely because he didn’t appear to be “of the movement” to a lot of non hardcore labor voters. Sunrise, the appearance of not being beholden to the unions/factions, the social conservatism, the wonkishness. He presented as nothing like any previous Labor leader. The perfect antidote to Howard if you like. Trustworthy. Competent. Safe. Concerned about the same things (climate change, health, education, cost of living) they were. Promising to roll back the policy where most people thought the coalition had gone too far.
In a way I see Gillard’s challenge a little differently. How to reconcile the movement with the need to win elections when the average voter is more socially conservative than the party itself and when Australia is embedded in a global economy that constrains the actions of national actors. Can she inspire both the movement and the median voter?
It is a pretty tough ask.
Interesting analysis Nick. And somewhat ironic given that Rudd is probably the least “of the movement” leader (well, perhaps Latham as well) that Labor has had in its history. Perhaps AWB gave Rudd movement cred, but it was more a matter of him being in the right place at the right time. The only alternative to Rudd from the right was Swan, and he was supporting Beazley. It was a pragmatic decision to hand the leadership to him, and internally there were a lot of misgivings.
I guess you might respond by arguing that I’m confusing the movement with those that control power within the party. But it is more than that. Kevin had little background in, or interest in the union movement at all. When I was working for him it was pretty clear that some of the response to WorkChoices was the price of the support for his leadership.
And I also wonder whether Rudd’s immense early popularity was precisely because he didn’t appear to be “of the movement” to a lot of non hardcore labor voters. Sunrise, the appearance of not being beholden to the unions/factions, the social conservatism, the wonkishness. He presented as nothing like any previous Labor leader. The perfect antidote to Howard if you like. Trustworthy. Competent. Safe. Concerned about the same things (climate change, health, education, cost of living) they were. Promising to roll back the policy where most people thought the coalition had gone too far.
In a way I see Gillard’s challenge a little differently. How to reconcile the movement with the need to win elections when the average voter is more socially conservative than the party itself and when Australia is embedded in a global economy that constrains the actions of national actors. Can she inspire both the movement and the median voter?
It is a pretty tough ask.
Brian @ 104 the circumstances are not identical of course, but when union heavies like Paul Howes start calling the shots and explaining in the media why it was necessary to replace the parliamentary leader, the basic situation is the same. Voters will never be able to have confidence in what MPs say because it might be overturned later by the machine.
The series of Prices and Incomes Accords were a brilliant system devised and implemented by Bob Hawke and Bill Kelty to keep the unions inside the ALP tent without letting them dictate government decisions. What people tend to lose sight of is that the unions decided in hindsight they’d been had and resolved “Never again”. There is a lot of pent-up anger within the union movement that their membership has collapsed and their institutional role in Australia has been undermined, and they blame the ALP for it.
The Labor Party is a creature of the union movement and they are determined not to let it out of their control again.
Brian @ 104 the circumstances are not identical of course, but when union heavies like Paul Howes start calling the shots and explaining in the media why it was necessary to replace the parliamentary leader, the basic situation is the same. Voters will never be able to have confidence in what MPs say because it might be overturned later by the machine.
The series of Prices and Incomes Accords were a brilliant system devised and implemented by Bob Hawke and Bill Kelty to keep the unions inside the ALP tent without letting them dictate government decisions. What people tend to lose sight of is that the unions decided in hindsight they’d been had and resolved “Never again”. There is a lot of pent-up anger within the union movement that their membership has collapsed and their institutional role in Australia has been undermined, and they blame the ALP for it.
The Labor Party is a creature of the union movement and they are determined not to let it out of their control again.
Ossie @92: my comment about the significance of the failure of vanguardist revolutionary parties was intended to highlight the roots of the current crisis for social democracy. I’m sorry that my comment sent you off into a flight of hallucination. Never mind.
However, the point remains that whilever the USSR and totalising socialism existed as a political/historical alternative then it stiffened the spines of the social democrat or labourist parties.
(NB Ossie: acknowledging this, you old cold war devil you, does not mean that I support, wish for, desire or am plotting a return or rerun of the disaster of the dictatorship of the proletariat. One day, oneday, it might be possible to mention the USSR without sending lunatics into a foaming frenzy of anti-communist hyperbole. It happened, you know, so it is a pretty good idea to know what happened and what were the political/historical consequences).
Absent that socialist option, and it is dead in the water, the project of human liberation from wage slavery, rapacious corporations and an insatiable ruling class propped up by a delusional petty bourgeoisie and professional bourgeoisie who think they also have a right to live like Phaorohs, assumes different proportions. Internationally, social democracy is struggling and not least because the working class no longer exists in any recognizable form within the industrialised West (Northern hemisphere if you wish). By this I mean that the class as a class of and for itself no longer exists. The working class is now primarily Chinese. This leaves social democracy having to re-invent itslef as genuinely social or, failing that, remain captive to rump elements of the still organised male blue collar working classes which is what has just happened with the AWU, Rudd, Gillard’s ascension and big dirt’s dirty fingers all over the ALP.
So, as you see, the problem is complex. Perhaps your simple solution of getting the lower house to work like the Athenian assembly might be best after all. Maybe we could mandate that at least they should dress like Athenians circa, what, say 150 BCE?
Ossie @92: my comment about the significance of the failure of vanguardist revolutionary parties was intended to highlight the roots of the current crisis for social democracy. I’m sorry that my comment sent you off into a flight of hallucination. Never mind.
However, the point remains that whilever the USSR and totalising socialism existed as a political/historical alternative then it stiffened the spines of the social democrat or labourist parties.
(NB Ossie: acknowledging this, you old cold war devil you, does not mean that I support, wish for, desire or am plotting a return or rerun of the disaster of the dictatorship of the proletariat. One day, oneday, it might be possible to mention the USSR without sending lunatics into a foaming frenzy of anti-communist hyperbole. It happened, you know, so it is a pretty good idea to know what happened and what were the political/historical consequences).
Absent that socialist option, and it is dead in the water, the project of human liberation from wage slavery, rapacious corporations and an insatiable ruling class propped up by a delusional petty bourgeoisie and professional bourgeoisie who think they also have a right to live like Phaorohs, assumes different proportions. Internationally, social democracy is struggling and not least because the working class no longer exists in any recognizable form within the industrialised West (Northern hemisphere if you wish). By this I mean that the class as a class of and for itself no longer exists. The working class is now primarily Chinese. This leaves social democracy having to re-invent itslef as genuinely social or, failing that, remain captive to rump elements of the still organised male blue collar working classes which is what has just happened with the AWU, Rudd, Gillard’s ascension and big dirt’s dirty fingers all over the ALP.
So, as you see, the problem is complex. Perhaps your simple solution of getting the lower house to work like the Athenian assembly might be best after all. Maybe we could mandate that at least they should dress like Athenians circa, what, say 150 BCE?
@Fran, that wasn’t directed at you, it was directed at salient’s remark to Mercurious, “Obviously you haven’t heard of pluralist, elitist and non-Marxist conflict theories of politics.”
Oh, obviously. How very declasse of you.
If an idea is worth anything, it can be explained so that people can understand it, in plain language. Remarks like that are nothing more than pseudo-intellectual wankery, and an attempt to belittle.
@Fran, that wasn’t directed at you, it was directed at salient’s remark to Mercurious, “Obviously you haven’t heard of pluralist, elitist and non-Marxist conflict theories of politics.”
Oh, obviously. How very declasse of you.
If an idea is worth anything, it can be explained so that people can understand it, in plain language. Remarks like that are nothing more than pseudo-intellectual wankery, and an attempt to belittle.
Rebekka, Mercurious’ #86 comment was rude and condescending and also ignorant as there are many competing theories of power, so I replied with appropriate sarcasm. Whinge at him not me.
Rebekka, Mercurious’ #86 comment was rude and condescending and also ignorant as there are many competing theories of power, so I replied with appropriate sarcasm. Whinge at him not me.
Can I just remind everyone that the comments policy requires commenters to be civil, and to refrain from abusing or casting aspersions on their interlocutors?
Future breaches of the policy on this thread will result in commenters’ ability to participate in discussion on this site being constrained by being placed in automatic moderation.
Can I just remind everyone that the comments policy requires commenters to be civil, and to refrain from abusing or casting aspersions on their interlocutors?
Future breaches of the policy on this thread will result in commenters’ ability to participate in discussion on this site being constrained by being placed in automatic moderation.
Anthony
Actually, it is the Senate I have in mind to emulate the ancient Athenian ekklesia, not the lower house. I think there is great civic genius in Westminster lower house representative democracy. My main beef with it is the electoral system, which I think technology and communications have outgrown somewhat. Though I still local politics is very real, I don’t think our Constitution serves it well.
As II said further up, I think arguably our most important federal governance problem is the office of the prime minister.
Anthony
Actually, it is the Senate I have in mind to emulate the ancient Athenian ekklesia, not the lower house. I think there is great civic genius in Westminster lower house representative democracy. My main beef with it is the electoral system, which I think technology and communications have outgrown somewhat. Though I still local politics is very real, I don’t think our Constitution serves it well.
As II said further up, I think arguably our most important federal governance problem is the office of the prime minister.
I said @5 I’d respond later on in the thread to the debate. Unfortunately time has got away from me – I’m leaving Brissie tomorrow for a holiday, and it will be an intertubes free one. Back on Friday, so I’ll either comment on this thread then if it’s still bubbling along, or put up another post reflecting on it.
In the meantime, enjoy your intertubes!
I said @5 I’d respond later on in the thread to the debate. Unfortunately time has got away from me – I’m leaving Brissie tomorrow for a holiday, and it will be an intertubes free one. Back on Friday, so I’ll either comment on this thread then if it’s still bubbling along, or put up another post reflecting on it.
In the meantime, enjoy your intertubes!