Over the last couple of weeks the people have spoken.
In the election for the Labor Party leadership, approximately 70% of rank and file membership voted, which is an extraordinary success considering the voting occurred during school holidays and there was a delay in sending the ballots out as it would appear someone forgot to book in the delivery with Australia Post.
The membership have indeed spoken, and in the infinite wisdom that has seen the Party brought to the brink of crisis point, the powers that be have decided that the views of the membership, made up of those who pay to support them should be discarded like the leftovers you find at the back of the fridge that are growing hairs.
In the historic election that for the first time in Australia saw the rank and file members of a major political party have a say in their leadership the weight given to the caucus vote ensured that the poor old rank and file punters opinion counted for Jack-Shit.
It would seem that some members of the caucus who were elected to represent the interests of their members have instead chosen to ignore the views of those members who pre-selected them and go with their own self interests instead.
Some of these, such as Julie Owens, Laurie Ferguson, Warren Snowdon, Kate Lundy, Maria Vamvakinou, Lisa Chesters and Brendan O’Conner are from Labors left who chose to vote against theirs and their branches natural alliances, and I hope the members of their local branch remember this next time pre-selection comes around. It would be interesting to know what it was that was dangled before them that made them into turncoats.
Is this the reform that Rudd promised us all?
The NSW Branch of the Labor Party was put into administration by Kevin Rudd as it was being run so badly, what has changed?
Former State Secretary Sam Dastyari was handed a cushy Senate seat, Matt Thistlewaite in return was gifted a safe electorate (which he nearly lost) for a seat in the House Of Reps. We now have Jamie Clements, Sam’s former assistant secretary at the helm, and again what has changed?
Sweet FA is what.
Meanwhile the one part of the reform that has been put in place, the rank and file having a say in who their leader is has ended up a farce, with the rank and file once again put in their place. We won’t be useful again until there is a campaign to run when doorknockers and people to hand out flyers are needed.
It took the media less than three minutes to start asking the questions about the knifing of Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard and Shortens involvement in both of those knifings, we can expect this line of questioning to continue for a long time to come.
In fact if Tim “the Demtel man” Shaw was selling politicians, Bill Shorten would come with two sets of free steak knives.
Scandals? But wait, there’s more….
As members we pay for the right to have a say. We have seen our say ignored in the past on issues such as our lurching to the right on the asylum seeker debate, something as a Party we can all be well and truly ashamed of, and also the failure of the Party to adopt same-sex marriage as a Party position rather than some lame conscience vote crap that ensures it will never be passed.
The caucus were elected to represent us, not to suddenly find a conscience.
If our say is totally ignored then what is it exactly that we pay for? Little wonder then there are calls for mass resignations from the party all over social media.
There are those who are talking about a now unified Party taking the fight to Abbott. This is wishful thinking on what is seemingly the grandest of scales.
What this election process has highlighted is that the Party is far from unified, it actually has a split of epic proportions. In the past the split has been seen as between right and left, from what we now know it is even worse than that as the split is between caucus and the membership. This is not something that will be fixed in a hurry, if at all.
Instead we can expect the Coalition and Murdoch to make an upsized super value meal out of this.
The leader the rank & file rejected
Tonight I have a branch meeting which I won’t be attending, instead I will be staying home and contemplating my support of the Labor Party, something I don’t do light-heartedly.
I won’t be giving my apologies for not attending tonight, as I think it is the Party that owes its rank and file an apology for ignoring us once again, particularly after being told for so long that our say would make a difference.
The way I see it, we had a chance to push through the reforms the Party needed so desperately and come out fighting, but our elected representatives screwed it up for us.
It feels like a dog that has been a loyal and trusted companion has suddenly become ill and is suffering.
Despite loving it dearly, sometimes it’s best to just have it put down and buy a new pup.
I hope the caucus have a decent explanation for their decision to reject reform and maintain the status quo that is doing us so much damage when they report back to their branches.
Remember the Queensland wipeout of 2012?
The way we are headed as a Party may make that look like a good day.
I hope I’m wrong, but it smells pretty bad from here.
Like Wixxyleaks on Facebook here
I’m sorry
I was unaware that publicly stating an opinion made me full of my own self importance….
But I guess if that is the case I am as guilt as anyone who has ever commented on a blog site, written a blog post, or even made a political comment on Twitter or Facebook
You are right however, I should congratulate the 40% who in a two horse race somehow beat the candidate with 60% of the support from members
I have nothing against Bill personally or professionally I just think he was the wrong candidate
What I am against is the hijacking of the reform process by those who have elevated Bill to his position, this is the reform the Party needs and I cannot see Bill delivering it due to his alliances
I hope I’m wrong, but either way I will always support the Party and what it stands for
What about that member, that is facing 5 years exile for opening his mouth.
hi Peter.
another incisive and perceptive piece … and as for the issue, well, i’m going to try and not say i told you so … difficult though that will be …
the ALP in 2013 … democratic – not … representative – not … with a little luck you will run for office again, but not for the ALP … then the good people of NSW can vote for representation not a Liberal Party facsimile in red ties.
Peter
I didn’t say you don’t have a right to speak your piece. You have every right.
I was a member for over 25 years, and I am still a member at heart. The only reason why I ceased being a member is because I couldn’t afford it. I never walked away. And I still support Labor and volunteer my time and effort as much as any Labor member.
You didn’t address anything I wrote about.
And if you didn’t like the rules used this time for electing a leader, then by all means agitate for more reform.
It seems to me that the R&F being granted a vote and the ensuing heady days of the ‘new democracy’ clouded the R&F to the actual rules, including the 50/50 weighting, and it soon turned sour for those who didn’t like the result.
I understand you are a Labor supporter, and I do understand the logic behind the mathematics you use, however at the end of it all a caucus member is just another member who should have a vote, if I can get 10,000 people to say they agree with me should I get a bigger vote? of course not…
The issue is not that we did not understand the rules, we just don’t agree with the weighting of votes because it overrides the rank and file, those the caucus are there to represent.
If we don’t have the discussion now we will once again be forced into it 3-6 months out from the next Federal Election and we will be wiped out for decades.
I like Bill Shorten, he did a great job with the NDIS, however it is too early for him as he is too aligned with those who need their wings clipped, he needs to wait until after reform has taken place in my opinion.
I am sorry if I was harsh, however I have had too many people shooting off at me for promoting real reform, not some half arsed effort designed to keep us in our place and appease the press.
We all want what’s best for the Party, we just differ in the way we get there
No, its because I am 5 out of 5 on the Dyslexic scale thank you very much…I am almost 48years old and have suffered this all my life…Winning a scholarship for college but failing because of my english….But I am also a “genius” in my field….
Maybe its the attitude you show that is rife in the “Labor” party that may be the problem….
If I had been an LNP troll why would I join the Greens…and if you had read my other posts you would have seen what I said about Abbott being Australia’s first ass-anated PM.
There is a saying that goes “for every finger you point, there is 3 pointing back at you”…
I think that both of you have it wrong. You see, in my opinion, according to democratic theory, the ‘Rudd’ rules-adopted democratic theory sets a process of primary party elections, for a party leader, to be followed by all Australians in a general election. It seemingly transpires, in the minds of ALP parliamentary caucus members, since 2010, that they’ve come to see their party position not very well as reflected in the polls they’ve themselves commissioned, and as reflected with the emergence of splinter party’s and independent voices, eg., Indi. But ALP Members are also quick to condemn “undemocratic” tactics as supposedly experienced by the words emanating from say the Murdoch media etc. In truth, I suppose that ALP Members and the general voting electors have a love-hate relationship with political parties. They believe that parties are necessary for democratic government, at the same time they think parties are somehow “obstructionist” and not to be trusted. This distrust is now particularly stronger amongst younger voters. To better appreciate the role of political parties in democratic government, the ALP Membership must redefine exactly what its party platform represents and how it will achieve its aims and objectives. If the ALP believes that it is an organisation that sponsors candidates for political office under its name, then it must implement rules for internal party voting that are truly democratic. The ALP must distinguish its function entirely from any other interest groups. Take the Palmer United Party, I believe that they are a interest group, even though Mr Palmer has begun to veil its cloaked function as we’ve seen with the Motor representative elected to the Senate, quote, “… we speak as a united group…”. The ALP, like its LNP counterpart, contribute to democratic government simply by nominating candidates for election to public office. In the absence of parties, voters would be confronted with a bewildering array of self-nominated candidates, each seeking a narrow victory over others on the basis of personal friendships, celebrity status, or a certain name. The procedure for changing the rules for selection was done over time by appointed party members reports, and by the recent decision of the ALP federal parliamentary caucus. Future reviews will be moved by any number of party branch members and they must be seriously considered. However, at this point in time the ALP must get on with its parliamentary program, failing so to do will only damage its prospects leading into the next election.
Response to C@tmomma….took you 6 paragraphs to say a lot about nothing. Now who is seems to have a sense of their own importance. *sighs*
Could some of the acrimony be toned down while still keeping this debate alive for the time being?
But not for too long because Shorten’s now the leader & he’ll require the support of Labor supporters as there won’t be any other kind. I’m sad to say that my musings on who I preferred as leader centred around how well the individual concerned would survive the media attacks that’ll surely come. That’s where Australian politics, or rather the reporting of them, is at.