Gillard supports primaries, as part of her desire to help the party grow and become “connected to the community”. Becoming connected to the community certainly sounds like a good plan, better than relying on focus groups, for instance.
But can we let the primaries idea go, please? The party does not need more focus on the individual MPs and leaders. It’s not the problem that needs solving.
Most people join political parties because of the issues. They want to see Labor policies enacted by a Labor government. It’s when the policy side starts slipping that people start caring about the people we put there, when you can’t expect Caucus to follow the platform that is developed, written, debated and voted on by its members.
When I was involved with policy committee work, a now senior party official once talked about the way policy work has changed. It used to be that platforms stated broad values and principles, leaving the specifics to the government. But slowly, as the platform became more and more optional, it became more and more specific, so as to make it easier to demonstrate compliance, or lack of. But of course, as policies become more specific, it is much easier for the caucus to find reasons why they can’t work, sometimes valid, sometimes not.
While it’s easy to resent unions using their numbers to put loyal factional warriors into contested seats, it’s worth considering that part of why they want to do that is so that they will have trustworthy people fighting for their policies in Parliament. It’s gotten to the point that a Senator in WA moved from the outer suburbs to the inner city to be closer to their union, and hardly anybody laughed at that. If we were to look at better ways of making the platform compulsory for Labor governments, then preselection battles would become more about getting good quality candidates who can win elections.
For others, the focus on preselections and leadership spills comes as a result of boredom and/or disillusionment. Most politicians enjoy and excel at negotiating and deal-making. Those are the skills that get them to where they are. So when they find themselves unable to achieve much in the way of policy wins many turn to a way in which they can exercise their skills and see immediate results.
Grassroots activists and true believers will not join the party for the ability to vote in a local primary ballot. If Labor wants to demonstrate some “connection to the community” they should start by recognising what it is they do want.
here, here.
“the use of primaries for preselections in non-held and open seats.”
So plebs can vote someone in, but they can’t vote them out. Useful.
I agree that bringing in Primaries will not rejuvenate ALP membership. The ALP was formed by the unions. Unionism in Australia, in particular membership levels, has evolved but the ALP has not.
Primaries will mean very little if the Unions continue to wish to impose their own will through factions and head offices.
But, given the amount of money that the Unions put into the ALP I can compltely understand why they expect to have control.
Playing with primaries is basically ignoring the fundamental issue of the nature of the ALP – is it the party of the Unions? If it isn’t, then should the Unions keep throwing money at it.
It is intersting to me that there are a number of unions not affiliated with the ALP. Why would they do this. The ALP is not delivering for it’s core constituency – the Unions, nor is it delivering for voters.
Good luck sorting all that out.
I didn’t even notice that, Anthony. That’s superb, basically getting rid of the only possible benefit of them.
Re #1
Where, where?
There, there.
If we were to look at better ways of making the platform compulsory for Labor governments, then preselection battles would become more about getting good quality candidates who can win elections.
I’m not sure how this would work or even if it should.
What penalty would apply to Labor governments that diverged from party policy? Would they be sacked and instead new MPs run in their seats? What about good governments that diverge from policy? Or changing circumstances. The ALP is elected promising to build 100 new schools and then World War III is declared the next day and we’re in the middle of it. Should the ALP govt then say well we’ll get to the war after we finish the schools?
I guess you’re getting at the disparity between the grass roots base of the ALP and the technocrats who move and shake in backrooms and on the floor of the House. But the solution is too rigid and rule-crazy. I don;t it could be enforced and if the Labor members in parliament can’t be trusted, and I get the impression they can’t, then how far will this take you?
Adrien, that’s part of what I was getting at in describing the way the platform has become too specific. Of course there would need to be leeway for changing circumstances and new information, but party office could find ways of holding caucus to the platform.
The primaries issue is another distraction to pretend the factional bosses are really doing something other than strengthen their own co-operative grips on power. The nonsense of re-vitalising Branches by giving pre-selection rights to NON-Party, NON-Branch members is patently hypocritical; but the deals done among the various career-inspired NON-Ideological programmes sponsored by “leaders” of what pass for factions is rarely challenged because our Party has developed a form of “democratic centralism” which would have earned the admiration of old-time Stalinists.
For decades factional leaders from other States wanted NSW to get rid of its Local Branch based rank and file pre-selections. Because P.R. enables the factional bosses to protect one another’s career interests (while they do deals behind closed doors which ensure not only that career prospects are shared as the bosses deem fit, but also that genuine debate of issues doesn’t occur at State or National Conference levels) it’s been in the interest of factional bosses to run down Local A.L.P. Branches. And current “reforms” continue the process. To make matters worse, on the track record of our “leaders”, IF there is anything worthwhile in the final package, like sound ideas in past reform proposals, they may well not be carried out anyway.
“Most people join political parties because of the issues. They want to see Labor policies enacted by a Labor government”
Given the rather small number of members political parties have, I imagine that this is really an empirical question — one which I’m not sure I’d believe without real data. Especially for young members, my bet is that many happen to join just because they bump into a group of people that they become friends with that happen to have those views (that’s why we do many things — it’s also how, for example, many religious organizations recruit people). If that wasn’t the case, then there would be no point in having all these groups wander around university campuses and so on trying to recruit people one way or another. The other reason I think that many people don’t join for the reasons you state above is that the policies of the major parties can shift quite some way even in relatively short spaces of time (just imagine if you joined Labor in 1980). Thus, if people were in the large part joining to try to get stereotypically Labor or Liberal parties enacted, then it’s not clear why the actual policies would have shifted so far (how many members would have joined in 1980 whose views would be congruent with those policies which Labor has now?)
Actually she supports primaries as part of her desire to stop the national conference turning into a vote-immolating left-right brawl about refugee policy.
The Parliamentary Liberal Parties are not bound by the policy positions of the Lay Party.
The Coalition doesn’t have primaries (do I recall the Nats running some recently?)
They don’t appear to be ripping themselves apart over this sort of thing.
The HSU has now dissaffiliated, but only in a few States. Like that’s going to make everything OK. I don’t normally play the man but what a bunch of morons.
I can’t imagine why anyone would join the ALP other than personal enrichment. If you want to affect the way the country is run you’d have more luck buying a lotto ticket with the goal of becoming a major donor. Or whatever the equivalent is in the Liberal party (a “supporter group member” perhaps).
The point at which policy is totally removed from party members is the point where it stops being relevant. Possibly it’s a size issue, once the country gets too big it’s too hard for members to influence … wait, The Greens don’t seem to have that problem. Maybe it’s just the tension between pleasing the donors who keep the party solvent and pleasing the members?
Who would be keen on campaign finance reform that said political parties may only raise money from their members, and only (say) $1000 a year per member? I think you’d end up with phantom members, but I’m sure it could be worked out – maybe make dues refundable pro rata and donations just refundable at any time if the member asks? Would make it risky to sign someone up and put $1000 in the kitty if they could rock up and ask for the money any time
ANNa – how specific, how general … take gay marriage for example. Should the platform be specific? What about ‘conscience’ votes?
For the life of me I cannot begin to imagine how any problem the ALp has could be assisted by having primaries. Surely that is an invitation to disruption of the party by those who at best, have little commitment to it.
OK, these days the party isn’t committed to any particular set of ideas and is just a vehicle for career advancement — a kind of professional development agency for career labour-related bureaucrats, but if it starts outsourcing career placement and succession planning, what role is left to it?
I was remionded of that famous line from The Bowler from Mystery Men …
Here’s a thought. Why not, just as a concept, doesn’t the ALP have a bit of a think, followed by a serious chinwag about what they think warrants all those branch meetings they have. Perhaps they could settle on some non-tribal reasons for not being a branch of the LNP.
Russell, it isn’t that complicated. Pro gay marriage, but no need to include specific details of what the legislation would look like.
I mean sure, there will always be grey areas – it’s policy making, there should be grey areas – but all this “Oh it sounds so difficult” business is quite strange. I’m basically a party member asking the MPs to do the things they say they support, I have no idea how the general principle can be controversial.
Anna – no ‘conscience’ votes then?
I’m getting to think we should give up on parties where everybody is compelled to vote on a party line. The community is very diverse now, and we want to elect a representative of us, not someone who is just there to make up the numbers when there’s a vote.
Also, people will be affected by the character of the individual candidate – even those wanting to vote for a Labor platform may not be able to bring themselves to vote for the Party’s candidate. And then there’s the issues that will never be in a platform, for example, though I support many of the ALP’s policies, and don’t mind Gillard, I probably won’t vote for the ALP in the lower house because of the Zentai affair.
Russell said:
Good grief … what a thing to go to the mattresses over … even if there were some sort of injustice entailed.
Assuming the representative democracy model, what we should want are people who can translate our ethical and intellectual predispositions into feasible policy. Since we cannot know with any certainty what individuals really think and free votes allow powerful interests to influence individuals — party solidarity can bring with it a measure of integrity to the process.
Now personally, I favour a radically different approach to governance — one much less reliant on the current usages and which would largely destroy party solidarity, but in the case of my proposal, there are other checks on the power of elites to impose themselves on individuals.
Very good points, AW. And a good post.
Pardon the metaphor, Jacques, but I think that boat has already sailed.
Fran – yes, parties are useful as a guide to where the candidate is, politically, but the strict discipline thing is a bit 20th century; as pointed out earlier, judging by their membership numbers they don’t seem to represent all that many of us ….
The Zentai matter: while other, seemingly more important issues, make me angry, the Zentai business makes me feel physically sick whenever I think of it. Why the minister wants to torture an old man into his grave, is just beyond me. The cruelty of it is somehow beyond politics.
The boat will be back. Or one like it. The point is that the time-tested way to stop ALP conferences from actually discussing policy is to cook up some Bold Reform of The Party that will force everyone to drop everything and grapple with it fruitlessly for a few days. Then normalcy can resume, with the country being run by the unemployed people who turn up to focus groups in Canberra, Sydney and Melbourne.
Of course there would need to be leeway for changing circumstances and new information, but party office could find ways of holding caucus to the platform.
May I suggest electricity.
It’s more than just the ALP’s problem. It’s been looming larger in all Western Democracies. Holding experts in power to account is a major problem across the board. It’s not just political it’s the main issue in corporate governance as well.
One of the problems with democracy is that power is open to everyone, hence those who most desire it are likely to get it. Add to that the complexity of things in modern society and it is very difficult to make technocrats accountable because most of us don’t understand what they’re on about.
I think the Hawkeating era attracted a lot of technocrats to the party and it’s born rotten fruit in this one. Their focus is on winning the game of politics. That’s elementary pragmatism sure. But there’s got to be some reason to win, some good reason why one should wield power. After a century of Social Democracy I’m not sure they know what their mission is anymore. But more worrying is the number who don’t care.
Anyway the Trots are on their way to Sydney so that might make things fun fer ya’s all.
Inter-dominion?
Which would be fine if they manage to completely do without a party full of members willing to help out on a campaign, and a party that raises funds for their election campaigns. It’s give and take – why should the party support them, if they aren’t required to take the party seriously?
You’re making it into a false choice of total submission to the platform or a free-for-all. There’s a whole range of options in between, where MPs are chosen to represent the party and its principles, while given room to use their judgement as well.
Of course it’s complicated, that’s why they’re talking about primaries.
@25 – like the ALP where you get called a Dog and thrown out if you cross the floor (but they are happy enough to cheer coalition members who exercise their right to do so.)
The reality is the difference is between voting for what the party wants or what the party advisors want. Conscience votes are not normal in Labor (the topic of the post) and are increasingly frowned on by the Libs, despite a presumed right to them.
The only reason to join one of the Laboral parties is to become a politician. There’s some poor saps do so out of a sense of duty (or tribal fealty) but it leads to being taken for granted. There was a time when party memberships led policy development but it only persists in smaller parties – the majors are machines to win government and are as pragmatic as a football team when it comes to doing what’s required to attract sponsorship and win premierships.
Anna’s proposals would attempt to address this but I suspect they would only succeed if they became criteria for political success – that those who didn’t take them on could not be part of a winning government. Perhaps if Labor has as disastrous a result in two years as the polls suggest they may be adopted.
“You’re making it into a false choice of total submission to the platform or a free-for-all.”
No, I’m not, I’m for having parties with platforms/policies, but am wary of what you seem to advocate: “ways of making the platform compulsory for Labor governments”.
I wonder what sort of person would want to be candidate under those conditions. Besides, isn’t it illegal to threaten members of parliament about how they vote? Can you say to MPs “unless you vote in accordance with this party policy, you will face expulsion?”
The cure is a primary?
I give this idea about seventeen seconds.
Yet another completely boring and naff post from Anna Winter.
Say no more.
[Thanks, nice to see you again - AW]
They’ve got to do something about candidate selection.
In Qld we just had the deputy premier announce his retirement from a safe labor seat. The first person who’s nomination is discussed in the Courier Mail works in the Premier’s office. He is married to the Labor leader in the Brisbane city council and doesn’t even live in the electorate concerned.
@18 – I assume you are referring to sortition.
TerjeP
A combination of sortition and deliberative voting for candidates, with direct democracy to set broad policy goals for parliament, yes.
The system to be used also for signicant quasi-state functions …
Doesn’t anybody here have the imagination to suggest that the real reform needed isn’t in holding primaries for marginal seats, but in having a grassroots election for parliamentary leader? When you have open and transparent leadership races between contestants seeking a mandate from the grassroots you get a whole lot of sunshine, a whole lot of ideas released. Okay, it’s still elite-lead policy developement, so it’s not like just any old activist can get themselves a spot on the steering committee in that format, but it’s a start.
Participation isn’t going to be driven from the bottom rung. I’m not certain it ever has been. Old labour was all about local working community grandees leading the lesser men, you see that in so much personal labour history where the writers invariably tell us just how well-respected grandpa was among his comrades/neighbours/parishioners/teammates, ‘cos he was a leader of men (always men), not a nameless activist. Complete egalitarian participation, that’s more of a sixties thing IMO (god, I’m sounding like one of the local dissident intellectuals, aren’t I?)
I think you’ve proivided your own answer to your question, Anna–just make the platform be as vague as it was in the old days (pre-1980 and the massive expansion of the national conference?) and not be a detailed policy manifesto designed to usurp the role of the actual policy wonks in office under an ALP government.
I’m afraid you’ve shot your argument in the foot by providing the very context for how traditional Labor used to avoid getting itself tied in knots, ergo you can’t really accuse modern Labor of selling out the ancient traditions if they’re merely creating problems that never existed before. Compared to the current extra-parliamentary policy-committee structure, Whitlam’s ‘programme’ was contained almost entirely in his and Race Matthew’s heads prior to the election of ’72.
Well, apropos @30, although I have nothing novel or pertinent to add about the topic itself, nevertheless, FWIW, I reckon Anna is never boring. Nor naff!
And, Philomena, stay classy.
Hardly a boring post.
You would swear that Gillard is throwing this out there so the ABC can make more cringing “comedy”, it won’t achieve anything else.
I give this idea about seventeen seconds.
Okay.
And good to see you again, J-Ro!
Russell@20
You mean the man accused of murdering a Jewish teenager?
Yeah, the mean old government’s just picking on a
Nazipoor old man.Crap, Nazi was supposed to be in strikethough.
[use del rather than strike next time ~ mod]