This again confirms my view of Albanese, an outright coward of a thug. He’ll only take on those he knows he can beat senseless. He sounds like and has the courage of Sylvester the cat.
If crossing the floor is that much of an issue what about Bridget Archer?
Fatima blew Wong’s 10 yr gay marriage argument out of the water, and in addition all that meant was Wong considered her career more important.
There is absolutely no conviction in the Labor party and that includes the unions, to a tee it’s all about positioning for power, money and prestige. Not a Labour man or women in the government to be seen, just a bunch of suits who mouth off about equality etc while doing nothing.
Labor's requirement for rigorous adherence to the party line made sense 100 years ago, when Labor was a third party, bargaining with Free Traders and Protectionists to win better conditions for workers. They couldn't do that if Caucus members made up their own minds on tariff policy.
And the big splits over conscription, the Premiers Plan and the Industrial Groups were deep enough that it was impossible for the party to hold together.
But for decades now, it's been a requirement for absolute obedience to whatever the Leader decides, regardless of what party policy might say. AFAIK, no other party in the democratic world demands this degree of obedience. The Caucus has ceased to matter, given the requirement that all ministers vote in line with the Cabinet, which can never defy the PM
I am not sure that I like the term 'hung parliament'. It seems to imply that an election outcome was some sort of accident, that some electors failed to foresee the result of their electoral choice. There is also an element of hypocrisy at play too as, all too often, the politicians who like to depict 'hung' parliaments as some sort of accident, are only too willing to take the equally likely 'accident' of a majority in their favour as an faithful reflection of the will of the people.
I stand with Senator Fatima Payman and have already written elsewhere including overseas about the rightwing stance of the current (formerly slightly left-of-centre) Labor Party and its cries of disloyalty should any member hold to a principled and moral position against the party line - one in this particular case well-muddied by positions bought by free trips to politicians and media “personalities” - whom I hesitate to call journalists - to Israel - via the Zionist dominated lobbies here in Australia. When I vote it is for the person pre-selected by the local party branch - and not because the person has been air-dropped in by the Head Office - but/and if that person’s public addresses match - more-or-less - my own position - they get my vote. I do not expect them to buckle under to a “party solidarity position”.
Is this a particularly right wing (or recent) stance of the Labor Party? Hasn't party unity always been manifest in this way in the ALP? And isn't it seen as more a left wing position to demand fealty in this manner, sort of like a communist regime of old?
Yes, Labor's insistence on strict Caucus solidarity is nothing new, but it's also worth noting John Quiggin's comment below about the changes in recent decades in how this works in practice.
Leaving aside what we think about the merits of Senator Payman's specific position on Israel/Palestine, there is a more general question raised by her actions, which is whether contemporary Labor's interpretation of the principle of Caucus solidarity is fit for purpose in the politics and society of Australia in 2024.
Dennis, this is the answer I got from Substack. It is basically just a check on the browser being up-to-date, and suggesting the usual process of clearing the browser's cache. If you aren't familiar with how to do these things, it is the sort of thing that is reasonably easily Googled. I hope it helps.
1. Check if their browser is up-to-date and encourage them to update it to the latest version.
2. If updating the browser doesn’t solve the problem, they might need to clear their browser cache and cookies, which can sometimes resolve unexpected behavior.
It was noted decades ago that had the moment, the political opportunity, been just slightly different, both Tony Abbott and Malcolm Turnbull would have sat as easily in the ALP as in the Liberal Party. Indeed, to follow both the words and deeds of Richard Marles is to be often slightly surprised that his lapel button is red and not blue - happily for Dick, the Right of Labor is today indistinguishable from the current centre group of the Libs, with one notable exception: the Labor machine is by far the more professional. And whilst both are without a spine and ready to turn immediately to a newly offered sixpence, the ALP (currently) whores itself out with acknowledged formalities and nods to established protocols.
As for Labor's alleged factional structure, it's now all but in name. There is no Left in Labor. 'Left' is now performative nostalgia for elections - and for the Australian commercial media (& the ABC) to goad the ALP executive into a more Mussolini-fascist aligned position: (Corporate) Business Über Alles... sing along if you know the words.
In the ALP's treatment of Payman, this Executive - this *Labor* Executive - is behaving in exactly the same way as Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson's executive's capture of the British Parliament. No difference whatsoever. If we had a Free Press in Australia (and Britain) (and in the US), instead of gatekeepers enforcing a titillation-focused myopia, gen. pop. would see these parallels clearly.
For the ALP wunderkind, Penny Wong, to now whine specifically about going along with Labor's then no-go-slow-go on marriage equality - a specificity not exercised regarding 25,000 recently slaughtered Palestinian children (and others) - illuminates that this professionally & politically successful. married. gay. woman. with a family. is only able to be actively empathetic with the social burdens of Penny Wong. The withholding of the ALP Executive's largesse, their exclusivity of kindness, from Senator Payman should be ringing alarm bells for every non-rusted on voter within any given minority, or related to such a minority, or friends with someone within such a demographic.
"And whilst both are without a spine and ready to turn immediately to a newly offered sixpence, the ALP (currently) whores itself out with acknowledged formalities and nods to established protocols.”
lololol and absolutely love “…whores itself out…."
I think there's also a psychological dimension that needs to be understood here. People like Albo and Penny Wong conceive their disagreement with Payman as in significant part a disagreement about which of them is authentically left-wing. This can certainly be read into Wong's comparison of her own acceptance of Caucus discipline over same-sex marriage with Payman's actions on Israel/Palestine. This psychological dimension lends an element of animus to their reaction to Payman that would probably not be present otherwise.
I am *not* arguing that people like Albo and Wong are correct to think of the matter in these terms. I am simply suggesting that this is probably *how* they think about it.
Yes, once you commit yourself to it, you are likely to get very shirty at someone who still has reservations. Reminding you what you have forfeited, to continue with your psychological idea.
Using same sex marriage as a comparison was bad enough but today Albanese used the example of an AFL team.
A comparison with opposing the slaughter of well over 30,000 people, many of whom were women and children by one of our 'allies' compared to the 'team work' of a bunch of blokes kicking a ball around.
The major parties rigid approach to discipline does not allow for individual and independent thought. Look at the UK or US where MPs and Congressional Members regularly vote against their party for matters of conscience/constituency preference (and lobbying).
Major Party MPs are more loyal to the ALP or LNP than their own constituents. It is a disgrace and Senator Payman is to be commended.
Instead we get nothing but sheep on the backbenches. If there were more Senators/MPs in Labor like Payman many would have a kinder view on the ALP. Instead there’s few with a backbone.
UK has pretty strict party discipline, esp Labour. Esp atm. Really good point about the US, where they are not "whipped" in the same way on most issues. The DNC mightn't particularly like Congress members like AOC, but she gets to be in the party and do her thing. She wouldn't last 10 seconds in either of our major parties.
I look to back in the Brexit Crisis where you had party MPs regularly crossing the floor. Exceptional circumstances but there are still MPs that routinely crossed the floor. Their confidence no doubt was in their connection to their constituency. I cannot say the same for Australian MPs who know they will win on preferences no matter who they alienate in the community.
When was the last time major party Australian MPs stood up for their state or constituents? It’s very rare these days. The independents are the best antidote to the duopoly
Agree, much more flexible than the ALP, but Labour still run a three-line whip. Will be interesting to see how things are after the election when Labour likely has a huge majority and therefore backbench.
The changes of the Conservative Lib Dem Coalition Government of 2010-2015 which empowered backbenchers more in terms of their parliamentary committee membership was definitely an enhancement of democracy (one of the few good changes brought in). The Ministers should be afraid of the backbench rather than the other way around.
I just don’t see similar changes yet in Australia where the ministers dominate and suffocate discussion to a greater extent than the UK. I also think it shows the Lower House should be expanded to allow greater depth of talent.
Keating was the sharp-suited, sharper-tongued sheepdog whose relentless snapping kept Labor freethinkers in line. Thus Pavlovianly cowed, the next natural step was for Beazley to show how much easier life for an MP/Senator could be if they voluntarily turned in their spines.
Rather than ostracising a Labor Politician for voting according to the Platform on Palestine statehood, I’d like to see the Executive of the Party held to account for ignoring the Platform which its actual members spent a great deal of time and energy created.
What’s happening to Fatima is so illustrative of how Labor and the Coalition operate - where overwhelmingly power lies with the executive and those that pull their strings, (including in this example the US), rather than with members, let alone voters. However I find the Rory Stewart quote to be only reflective of the way mainstream political parties operate, but not the way that parties have to be. The challenge is of course to build parties that aren’t like the current Labor and Liberal parties. I remain optimistic, looking back on 30years of the Greens that it’s possible. There are big advantages to having parties, of coherence, transparency, policy development, recruitment of members and supporters, election campaigning, having cut through across the country etc. The big differences between the Greens and other parties is that we are genuinely democratic in our membership involvement, anchored by our commitment to consensus: and the requirement of our party rooms to vote according to policy which is agreed to by members. Our MPs have conscience votes - which in the federal parliament have never been used.
I enjoyed your piece on your experience in the Senate, Janet. Esp that it highlights that you can have legitimate disagreement and still get the job done. Worth reading, everyone: https://greenagenda.org.au/2024/06/facilitating-change/
Thanks, as usual, Tim for a great piece. This really sums up the problem and the reason independents are making such inroads in a politics we despise: "Even worse was that they felt that their local members didn’t see their role as conveying the concerns of the community to the party but as conveying the party’s priorities to the community."
I imagine that her electorate may have a concerned number of Palestinian supporters and…Labor was glad to have her on board Yet…..when the Zion lobbyists start to pull their punches Albanese reacts and tells her to pull her head in or leave that path . Well 🥰
This again confirms my view of Albanese, an outright coward of a thug. He’ll only take on those he knows he can beat senseless. He sounds like and has the courage of Sylvester the cat.
If crossing the floor is that much of an issue what about Bridget Archer?
Fatima blew Wong’s 10 yr gay marriage argument out of the water, and in addition all that meant was Wong considered her career more important.
There is absolutely no conviction in the Labor party and that includes the unions, to a tee it’s all about positioning for power, money and prestige. Not a Labour man or women in the government to be seen, just a bunch of suits who mouth off about equality etc while doing nothing.
Yes, and see John Quiggin's comment above.
Sylvester the Cat - oh dear!
You should watch “Sylvester has a son?”. But no, the son doesn’t have Captains Club membership.
duck://player/WS79sM0GpVs
Labor's requirement for rigorous adherence to the party line made sense 100 years ago, when Labor was a third party, bargaining with Free Traders and Protectionists to win better conditions for workers. They couldn't do that if Caucus members made up their own minds on tariff policy.
And the big splits over conscription, the Premiers Plan and the Industrial Groups were deep enough that it was impossible for the party to hold together.
But for decades now, it's been a requirement for absolute obedience to whatever the Leader decides, regardless of what party policy might say. AFAIK, no other party in the democratic world demands this degree of obedience. The Caucus has ceased to matter, given the requirement that all ministers vote in line with the Cabinet, which can never defy the PM
Exactly. And I suspect they just double down on it if there is a "hung" parliament.
I am not sure that I like the term 'hung parliament'. It seems to imply that an election outcome was some sort of accident, that some electors failed to foresee the result of their electoral choice. There is also an element of hypocrisy at play too as, all too often, the politicians who like to depict 'hung' parliaments as some sort of accident, are only too willing to take the equally likely 'accident' of a majority in their favour as an faithful reflection of the will of the people.
I stand with Senator Fatima Payman and have already written elsewhere including overseas about the rightwing stance of the current (formerly slightly left-of-centre) Labor Party and its cries of disloyalty should any member hold to a principled and moral position against the party line - one in this particular case well-muddied by positions bought by free trips to politicians and media “personalities” - whom I hesitate to call journalists - to Israel - via the Zionist dominated lobbies here in Australia. When I vote it is for the person pre-selected by the local party branch - and not because the person has been air-dropped in by the Head Office - but/and if that person’s public addresses match - more-or-less - my own position - they get my vote. I do not expect them to buckle under to a “party solidarity position”.
Yes, good point about airdropping politicians and expecting people to vote for them. Labor should've learned this lesson in Fowler.
Is this a particularly right wing (or recent) stance of the Labor Party? Hasn't party unity always been manifest in this way in the ALP? And isn't it seen as more a left wing position to demand fealty in this manner, sort of like a communist regime of old?
Yes, Labor's insistence on strict Caucus solidarity is nothing new, but it's also worth noting John Quiggin's comment below about the changes in recent decades in how this works in practice.
Leaving aside what we think about the merits of Senator Payman's specific position on Israel/Palestine, there is a more general question raised by her actions, which is whether contemporary Labor's interpretation of the principle of Caucus solidarity is fit for purpose in the politics and society of Australia in 2024.
Jim, I’d like your comment as well as others, but have a problem doing so at present.
Dennis, this is the answer I got from Substack. It is basically just a check on the browser being up-to-date, and suggesting the usual process of clearing the browser's cache. If you aren't familiar with how to do these things, it is the sort of thing that is reasonably easily Googled. I hope it helps.
1. Check if their browser is up-to-date and encourage them to update it to the latest version.
2. If updating the browser doesn’t solve the problem, they might need to clear their browser cache and cookies, which can sometimes resolve unexpected behavior.
Labor's two state solution: Israel, and some other place that we don't recognise.
Ikr? Lol
A.L.P. - Another Liberal Party.
Wherein lies the difference?
It was noted decades ago that had the moment, the political opportunity, been just slightly different, both Tony Abbott and Malcolm Turnbull would have sat as easily in the ALP as in the Liberal Party. Indeed, to follow both the words and deeds of Richard Marles is to be often slightly surprised that his lapel button is red and not blue - happily for Dick, the Right of Labor is today indistinguishable from the current centre group of the Libs, with one notable exception: the Labor machine is by far the more professional. And whilst both are without a spine and ready to turn immediately to a newly offered sixpence, the ALP (currently) whores itself out with acknowledged formalities and nods to established protocols.
As for Labor's alleged factional structure, it's now all but in name. There is no Left in Labor. 'Left' is now performative nostalgia for elections - and for the Australian commercial media (& the ABC) to goad the ALP executive into a more Mussolini-fascist aligned position: (Corporate) Business Über Alles... sing along if you know the words.
In the ALP's treatment of Payman, this Executive - this *Labor* Executive - is behaving in exactly the same way as Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson's executive's capture of the British Parliament. No difference whatsoever. If we had a Free Press in Australia (and Britain) (and in the US), instead of gatekeepers enforcing a titillation-focused myopia, gen. pop. would see these parallels clearly.
For the ALP wunderkind, Penny Wong, to now whine specifically about going along with Labor's then no-go-slow-go on marriage equality - a specificity not exercised regarding 25,000 recently slaughtered Palestinian children (and others) - illuminates that this professionally & politically successful. married. gay. woman. with a family. is only able to be actively empathetic with the social burdens of Penny Wong. The withholding of the ALP Executive's largesse, their exclusivity of kindness, from Senator Payman should be ringing alarm bells for every non-rusted on voter within any given minority, or related to such a minority, or friends with someone within such a demographic.
A.L.P. - Another Liberal Party.
I suspect you would really enjoy the Rory Stewart book if you haven't already read it. Worth watching the interview I liked too.
"And whilst both are without a spine and ready to turn immediately to a newly offered sixpence, the ALP (currently) whores itself out with acknowledged formalities and nods to established protocols.”
lololol and absolutely love “…whores itself out…."
I think there's also a psychological dimension that needs to be understood here. People like Albo and Penny Wong conceive their disagreement with Payman as in significant part a disagreement about which of them is authentically left-wing. This can certainly be read into Wong's comparison of her own acceptance of Caucus discipline over same-sex marriage with Payman's actions on Israel/Palestine. This psychological dimension lends an element of animus to their reaction to Payman that would probably not be present otherwise.
I am *not* arguing that people like Albo and Wong are correct to think of the matter in these terms. I am simply suggesting that this is probably *how* they think about it.
Yes, once you commit yourself to it, you are likely to get very shirty at someone who still has reservations. Reminding you what you have forfeited, to continue with your psychological idea.
Using same sex marriage as a comparison was bad enough but today Albanese used the example of an AFL team.
A comparison with opposing the slaughter of well over 30,000 people, many of whom were women and children by one of our 'allies' compared to the 'team work' of a bunch of blokes kicking a ball around.
I reckon Albo has dropped the ball.
And he has said again it has interfered with the tax cut announcements.
Indeed! Albo has no balls…
Time for change.
Voices4Cowper in my neck of the woods are up & running again. Selection of candidate this Sunday.
Cowper no longer a safe Nats seat since last election.
Caz Heise did really well in 2022. Is she not running again?
She did.
Candidate selection this Sunday 7th.
Caz has expressed interest.
Haven't seen line up atm
Will be interesting to see. Is it a Climate 200 seat?
The forum this Sunday is a meet the candidates event..
Voices4Cowper website has all the info.
Yes.
The major parties rigid approach to discipline does not allow for individual and independent thought. Look at the UK or US where MPs and Congressional Members regularly vote against their party for matters of conscience/constituency preference (and lobbying).
Major Party MPs are more loyal to the ALP or LNP than their own constituents. It is a disgrace and Senator Payman is to be commended.
Instead we get nothing but sheep on the backbenches. If there were more Senators/MPs in Labor like Payman many would have a kinder view on the ALP. Instead there’s few with a backbone.
UK has pretty strict party discipline, esp Labour. Esp atm. Really good point about the US, where they are not "whipped" in the same way on most issues. The DNC mightn't particularly like Congress members like AOC, but she gets to be in the party and do her thing. She wouldn't last 10 seconds in either of our major parties.
I look to back in the Brexit Crisis where you had party MPs regularly crossing the floor. Exceptional circumstances but there are still MPs that routinely crossed the floor. Their confidence no doubt was in their connection to their constituency. I cannot say the same for Australian MPs who know they will win on preferences no matter who they alienate in the community.
When was the last time major party Australian MPs stood up for their state or constituents? It’s very rare these days. The independents are the best antidote to the duopoly
Agree, much more flexible than the ALP, but Labour still run a three-line whip. Will be interesting to see how things are after the election when Labour likely has a huge majority and therefore backbench.
The changes of the Conservative Lib Dem Coalition Government of 2010-2015 which empowered backbenchers more in terms of their parliamentary committee membership was definitely an enhancement of democracy (one of the few good changes brought in). The Ministers should be afraid of the backbench rather than the other way around.
I just don’t see similar changes yet in Australia where the ministers dominate and suffocate discussion to a greater extent than the UK. I also think it shows the Lower House should be expanded to allow greater depth of talent.
Keating was the sharp-suited, sharper-tongued sheepdog whose relentless snapping kept Labor freethinkers in line. Thus Pavlovianly cowed, the next natural step was for Beazley to show how much easier life for an MP/Senator could be if they voluntarily turned in their spines.
No backbones in the Labor Party, please.
It's amazing how much we take such party discipline for granted. Or at least, we used to.
Rather than ostracising a Labor Politician for voting according to the Platform on Palestine statehood, I’d like to see the Executive of the Party held to account for ignoring the Platform which its actual members spent a great deal of time and energy created.
What’s happening to Fatima is so illustrative of how Labor and the Coalition operate - where overwhelmingly power lies with the executive and those that pull their strings, (including in this example the US), rather than with members, let alone voters. However I find the Rory Stewart quote to be only reflective of the way mainstream political parties operate, but not the way that parties have to be. The challenge is of course to build parties that aren’t like the current Labor and Liberal parties. I remain optimistic, looking back on 30years of the Greens that it’s possible. There are big advantages to having parties, of coherence, transparency, policy development, recruitment of members and supporters, election campaigning, having cut through across the country etc. The big differences between the Greens and other parties is that we are genuinely democratic in our membership involvement, anchored by our commitment to consensus: and the requirement of our party rooms to vote according to policy which is agreed to by members. Our MPs have conscience votes - which in the federal parliament have never been used.
I enjoyed your piece on your experience in the Senate, Janet. Esp that it highlights that you can have legitimate disagreement and still get the job done. Worth reading, everyone: https://greenagenda.org.au/2024/06/facilitating-change/
Thanks, as usual, Tim for a great piece. This really sums up the problem and the reason independents are making such inroads in a politics we despise: "Even worse was that they felt that their local members didn’t see their role as conveying the concerns of the community to the party but as conveying the party’s priorities to the community."
what a blisteringly accurate article TD. I hope every member of the duopoly reads this & cogitates deeply & acts accordingly. Cheers
We reach an elite audience here, Gavin!
I imagine that her electorate may have a concerned number of Palestinian supporters and…Labor was glad to have her on board Yet…..when the Zion lobbyists start to pull their punches Albanese reacts and tells her to pull her head in or leave that path . Well 🥰
He wants the diversity of members without the diversity of points of view. Untenable.