As you imply, the internal culture of the Labor party hasn't really changed since the 1950s. The Split reflected that culture and helped to perpetuate it. It was still the dividing line in the 1980s, when Albanese, Plibersek, Shorten and others went through the process of political formation. And we see it today in the use of words like "rat" and "renegade" to describe what would, in any other party, be a fairly ordinary policy disagreement.
Yes, the structure, the pledge, generates the division, or exacerbates it at least. Ironic, and not in the Alanis Morrisette sense either, I don't think.
The public discussion has tended to polarise unhelpfully between a circling of the wagons in defence of Labor's existing system of collective party/caucus discipline, phrased in language that appeals to the Labor faithful but to few others, and a thoughtless dismissal of any form of collective party solidarity. Nobody has yet found a way to make representative democracy work without political parties (or their equivalents) playing some role, and a political party has to adhere to some system of collective solidarity and discipline in order to function as a party. Every party practices collective discipline: the Liberals are far less liberal than they make out in relation to how they have treated their own maverick MPs over the past few decades, and it is not that long since Lee Rhiannon was suspended from the Greens party room because of her stance on an issue of education funding.
There is certainly a discussion to be had about whether Labor's particular regime of collective discipline is unduly rigid and no longer sustainable in its present form in contemporary Australian society and politics, and that discussion would include what kind of obligations a party can impose on its members and representatives in relation to a situation like that in Israel/Palestine, where widely differing views exist not only among its members but within its support base.
By the ALPs logic, if caucus decided to jump off a cliff at Sydney Heads, every MP and Senator will be forced to go along with it. What a stupid rule that prevents independent thought. A cult obsessed with control.
The ruthless backgrounding against Senator Payman by the ALP demonstrates a bullying atmosphere within the party that does not brook independent thought or the expression of a moral conscience. If more Senators like her and David Pocock were in parliament we’d be better off.
The PM seems like a thin skinned man to summon the youngest Senator to the Lodge to exercise his power over an elected representative. They expected her to be a silent token representative and she proved them wrong. It’s the Kristina Keneally parachute drop into Fowler vibe again. I commend the Senator for her courage.
That's the crazy thing, isn't it? What is the point of "diversity" if the rules can really make no room for it. I get she can argue her case and then abide by the majority, but this isn't that.
Tim has provided what seems like a reasonable, balanced appraisal of the situation that has arisen within the ALP. It has significant implications for the community and the way in which our politics is conducted. At a time when we need to tolerate and encourage more nuance in our approach to managing complex societal issues, ALP members should at least have the right to abstain from voting in a way that conflicts with the views & values of the member and the community he or she represents.
This is going to be difficult to get right. The way I see Labor’s pledge is nothing more than how large corporations are run. Albanese’s the CEO while the Cabinet is the most senior level of managers, the rest of the MPs are in with the party members, generally nobodies with some exceptions. They are the shareholders, they own the company, but generally have no bloody say. You go against the top level of management and you are gone. That’s democracy for you.
It didn’t take long for the management of Payman’s exit to come into play. First her temporary banishment from caucus, then permanent, leaking expectations of her going to the cross benches, commentating that this was a long term strategic plan of hers and the media in general talking Labor’s book for them. They either handled this really ineptly or they knew how this would pan out and that is she’d pull her head in and become a nobody, or she’d walk; she didn’t have much choice. Well done Fatima!
The part I find rather disgusting is Wong and other Labor lbgqt+ supporters conflating a 10 yr wait for gay marriage with what’s happening in the M.E. and not forgetting the Palestinian issue must have been going on for 60 yrs.
Albanese may be a manager, but he’s certainly no leader, unless of course we’re are talking Blackadder Goes Forth style of leadership! There appears to be no ability to take a position and argue it in public, to try and take voters with you, to convince them. Where is the Paul Keating of the day? Juice Media have it to a tee, shitelite (tm).
The only Labor person of note for me is Shorten, imo he’s spoken in a very mildly or maybe I’m just naive.
For me, Payman has shown more integrity and courage than anyone else.
I must admit I don't like the comparison with a corporation, though I see the point. A political party isn't and shouldn't be a corporation and that corporate logic shouldn't apply. Agree with your last comment, and throw in the media reaction and...boy oh boy...
I agree, and I don’t mean it literally, just that they run it like a corp; from the top down and members have very little say, just like small shareholders.
Does a Muslim Vote movement mean that it’s religiously driven? My take, and I’m ready to admit I could easily be wrong, is that they’re tired of Labor playing we are the “diversity” representative party in Australia, while disregarding them and telling them to be quiet; basically taking them for granted, just like the Dems did with the black & hispanic vote.
If it’s religiously driven, not good news I guess, but I just don’t see that. However, if it’s about getting heard in overseas issues that have a big impact on them, you can hardly blame them.
I've only just read it. I think it's great, and he's right, there is enough hypocrisy on all sides to go round, but such is the nature of political disagreement. It's hard to be perfectly consoidtent: maybe not even desirable. Still, I think the comparison with neoliberalism and individuality in this case is wrong. As I said in regard to VB's comments, given the seriousness and unique nature of the Gaza question, this doesn't remotely rise to the level of being indivudalism uber alles. The comparison, in this case, doesn't work for me.
Oh, I agree Tim. I think Keane takes the argument about as far as you can without descending into parody, but I don’t accept his interpretation at all. I think your views in diversity in the ALP and how this will play out in the real electorates is spot on.
As you imply, the internal culture of the Labor party hasn't really changed since the 1950s. The Split reflected that culture and helped to perpetuate it. It was still the dividing line in the 1980s, when Albanese, Plibersek, Shorten and others went through the process of political formation. And we see it today in the use of words like "rat" and "renegade" to describe what would, in any other party, be a fairly ordinary policy disagreement.
Yes, the structure, the pledge, generates the division, or exacerbates it at least. Ironic, and not in the Alanis Morrisette sense either, I don't think.
The public discussion has tended to polarise unhelpfully between a circling of the wagons in defence of Labor's existing system of collective party/caucus discipline, phrased in language that appeals to the Labor faithful but to few others, and a thoughtless dismissal of any form of collective party solidarity. Nobody has yet found a way to make representative democracy work without political parties (or their equivalents) playing some role, and a political party has to adhere to some system of collective solidarity and discipline in order to function as a party. Every party practices collective discipline: the Liberals are far less liberal than they make out in relation to how they have treated their own maverick MPs over the past few decades, and it is not that long since Lee Rhiannon was suspended from the Greens party room because of her stance on an issue of education funding.
There is certainly a discussion to be had about whether Labor's particular regime of collective discipline is unduly rigid and no longer sustainable in its present form in contemporary Australian society and politics, and that discussion would include what kind of obligations a party can impose on its members and representatives in relation to a situation like that in Israel/Palestine, where widely differing views exist not only among its members but within its support base.
Nicely put.
Great post Tim.
By the ALPs logic, if caucus decided to jump off a cliff at Sydney Heads, every MP and Senator will be forced to go along with it. What a stupid rule that prevents independent thought. A cult obsessed with control.
The ruthless backgrounding against Senator Payman by the ALP demonstrates a bullying atmosphere within the party that does not brook independent thought or the expression of a moral conscience. If more Senators like her and David Pocock were in parliament we’d be better off.
The PM seems like a thin skinned man to summon the youngest Senator to the Lodge to exercise his power over an elected representative. They expected her to be a silent token representative and she proved them wrong. It’s the Kristina Keneally parachute drop into Fowler vibe again. I commend the Senator for her courage.
That's the crazy thing, isn't it? What is the point of "diversity" if the rules can really make no room for it. I get she can argue her case and then abide by the majority, but this isn't that.
Tim has provided what seems like a reasonable, balanced appraisal of the situation that has arisen within the ALP. It has significant implications for the community and the way in which our politics is conducted. At a time when we need to tolerate and encourage more nuance in our approach to managing complex societal issues, ALP members should at least have the right to abstain from voting in a way that conflicts with the views & values of the member and the community he or she represents.
Yes, and we all need to acknowledge it is a tough line to draw. The overreaction within the media makes it all but impossible.
This is going to be difficult to get right. The way I see Labor’s pledge is nothing more than how large corporations are run. Albanese’s the CEO while the Cabinet is the most senior level of managers, the rest of the MPs are in with the party members, generally nobodies with some exceptions. They are the shareholders, they own the company, but generally have no bloody say. You go against the top level of management and you are gone. That’s democracy for you.
It didn’t take long for the management of Payman’s exit to come into play. First her temporary banishment from caucus, then permanent, leaking expectations of her going to the cross benches, commentating that this was a long term strategic plan of hers and the media in general talking Labor’s book for them. They either handled this really ineptly or they knew how this would pan out and that is she’d pull her head in and become a nobody, or she’d walk; she didn’t have much choice. Well done Fatima!
The part I find rather disgusting is Wong and other Labor lbgqt+ supporters conflating a 10 yr wait for gay marriage with what’s happening in the M.E. and not forgetting the Palestinian issue must have been going on for 60 yrs.
Albanese may be a manager, but he’s certainly no leader, unless of course we’re are talking Blackadder Goes Forth style of leadership! There appears to be no ability to take a position and argue it in public, to try and take voters with you, to convince them. Where is the Paul Keating of the day? Juice Media have it to a tee, shitelite (tm).
The only Labor person of note for me is Shorten, imo he’s spoken in a very mildly or maybe I’m just naive.
For me, Payman has shown more integrity and courage than anyone else.
I must admit I don't like the comparison with a corporation, though I see the point. A political party isn't and shouldn't be a corporation and that corporate logic shouldn't apply. Agree with your last comment, and throw in the media reaction and...boy oh boy...
Hi Tim,
I agree, and I don’t mean it literally, just that they run it like a corp; from the top down and members have very little say, just like small shareholders.
Yes, fair enough
Hi Tim,
Does a Muslim Vote movement mean that it’s religiously driven? My take, and I’m ready to admit I could easily be wrong, is that they’re tired of Labor playing we are the “diversity” representative party in Australia, while disregarding them and telling them to be quiet; basically taking them for granted, just like the Dems did with the black & hispanic vote.
If it’s religiously driven, not good news I guess, but I just don’t see that. However, if it’s about getting heard in overseas issues that have a big impact on them, you can hardly blame them.
Good question, Dennis. It doesn't follow at all, and I hope it doesn't head in that direction.
I like your article Tim. Wondered if you’d seen Bernard Keane’s riff on the views put out by Van Badham (who, for me, is as ‘rusted on’ as you can get) re Payman’s behaviour as an expression of neoliberalism? https://www.crikey.com.au/2024/07/05/fatima-payman-labor-debate-no-nuance/
I've only just read it. I think it's great, and he's right, there is enough hypocrisy on all sides to go round, but such is the nature of political disagreement. It's hard to be perfectly consoidtent: maybe not even desirable. Still, I think the comparison with neoliberalism and individuality in this case is wrong. As I said in regard to VB's comments, given the seriousness and unique nature of the Gaza question, this doesn't remotely rise to the level of being indivudalism uber alles. The comparison, in this case, doesn't work for me.
Oh, I agree Tim. I think Keane takes the argument about as far as you can without descending into parody, but I don’t accept his interpretation at all. I think your views in diversity in the ALP and how this will play out in the real electorates is spot on.
But, as you say, his comments on the rampant hypocrisy are quite correct.