Vote green if you like, but only Labor can fix the problem
I thought I’d open a new thread to outline my views on Kim’s post at LP that got me so hot under the collar.
Voting green bothers me less (far less) than the defeatism of ‘The Rudd Labor Party deserves to lose this election’ and the following line ‘If it hadn’t been for WorkChoices, buddy, you couldn’t even count on a preference from me now.’
And the thing i find most stupid of all is the quote she’s got such a huge problem with:
“Meanwhile, Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd says a Labor Government would create a bi-partisan ‘war cabinet’ to deal with the national emergency in indigenous communities.”
Er… so what’s the problem? I think that’s a fantastic idea. I mean really, the thing with this issue is that it’s too big to let political point-scoring determine your actions. The last thing that anybody needs is one party using indigenous people as a wedge…
Oh, wait, we’ve got that already.
But Rudd’s plan is different. Running a war cabinet, bringing the opposition to the table and simply saying ‘we’re going to fix this together, damn the credit and the critics, let’s work something out’ also leaves open the opportunity to go out and listen to ideas coming from the grassroots, and you can take them on board and implement them without fear of the ‘other side’ kicking you for it. It means they’re actually free to act. To do something!
And with a Labor Government, the whole idea wouldn’t be tied up in silly ‘we’ll take your land so you look after your kids’ games either.
It was a Labor Government that created the Royal Commission into Black Deaths in Custody. It was the Labor party that first took seriously the issue of reconciliation and moved the wheels of government to address it. It was a Labor politician who poured sand into Charles Lingiari’s hand and it was the Labor Party who passed the original Native Title Act.
Labor actually did these things. They didn’t ask from the sidelines and complain when rebuffed, they did them. You can only ever do these things from government. That’s why it’s important to make sure Labor gets elected this year.
Mark wrote:
Great point – it’s terrible that only one group of white people is telling Aboriginal people what to do – let’s get all the white people together and surely we can fix their problems! (I know there are some black people in the ALP, but this doesn’t substantially change the point).
Kim wrote:
Look, I wrote that post in anger (check the timestamp too!). I wasn’t arguing that a Howard government would be preferable to a Rudd government. I’m absolutely committed to kicking Howard out. But I think you need to consider why you get so angry about someone disagreeing with Rudd and the ideological direction he’s taking Labor, and choosing to first preference the Greens. In the past, I’ve argued strongly against the irrationality of Greens supporters dissing Labor for partisan reasons, but you might like to reflect on that as well.
Myth wrote:
Couldnt of summed up my views on the matter better.
alex white wrote:
Kim - I’m not angry that you disagreed with Rudd (or the ALP).
I’m concerned that there is a viewpoint out there (that you expressed) that Labor “deserves to lose the election” - that it would be preferable to have another term of the Howard Government.
Professor Neurotic wrote:
Everytime I see that lady, Santini, she acts as an anamnestic and I just remembered what it is she reminded me of. The bloke she married, Morris, has cut funding to Aboriginal Affairs in NSW from AUD$40 million to about $29 million. He is also hiding a report into Aboriginal issues. Is that the ALP’s version of leading the way?
arleeshar wrote:
What? That’s illogical.
Indicating one’s opinion that one side doesn’t deserve to win is not the same thing as saying that it would be preferable to have the other side win.
I personally think Rudd’s got a shitty industrial relations policy that doesn’t fulfil the labor brief. He doesn’t deserve my vote with such a shitty policy. But you know what? Saying that does not equate to my saying that it would be better for Howard to win. Howard’s policy is even worse. Howard deserves my vote even less.
Kim wrote:
Alex, what arleeshar said.
fozzy wrote:
Actually, whilst in theory not voting for Rudd doesn’t mean voting for Howard. In practice it does.
My expectation is that once Howard is defeated, Labor’s policies will be adjusted. And even if they don’t, that’s something for the election after next - not this one.
Rudd needs every possible bit of support he can get. I don’t mean to sound like the Ruddster cheer squad. It’s just that getting rid of Howard is so critical to the well being of this country! When you start using abused children as nothing more than a way of keeping your job and helping your mining mates, it’s clear just how sick the Rodent has become.
There are things I don’t like about Rudd. But at the end of the day, he’s in opposition. Things will only get worse for Aboriginal children whilst Howard is in power. When Rudd is PM, that is the time start criticizing the plans he has.
And in practice there are no other choices: if you don’t want Howard as PM, then you only have Rudd.
[Aside: Thinking about the “trust” issue. How would this “emergency” be viewed if we hadn’t had Tampa, Children Overboard, SIEV X, destroying ATSIC, winding back WIK, gutting Native Title, etc. etc. etc. If Howard is really genuine, he’s only got himself to blaim for people not trusting him - he’s a very clever politician ]
arleeshar wrote:
Pretty sure nobody disagrees with most of that, fozzy.
That still doesn’t mean that Rudd hasn’t taken these self evident facts entirely for granted.
He doesn’t deserve my vote right now. He’s still going to get it. Which is the crap thing about compulsory voting - your base can never truly leave you, so you don’t have to concentrate on deserving their support.
alex white wrote:
Bollocks - new and emerging parties (or old ones) have the ability to try to take this support. It is a failing on the Greens for example to not be able to widen their progressive support base, and a failure on conservative parties to not try to widen their right-wing support from the Liberals.
arleeshar wrote:
It’s not bollocks. It’s the compulsory preferential voting system. And parliamentary representation in this system is not just about appeal or support base - look at Fielding First, the 2% senator.
Of course, a far superior optional preferential system exists in NSW which allows a dissenting vote to stay progressive and not end up in the coffers of those who take the eventual preferential progressive vote for granted.
larrylaffer wrote:
Alex - Just a follow up from your post in the other thread which went something like this ‘People who condemn Labor Policy should be ashamed of themselves’(or something to that effect). Are you saying the Unions should be condemned about the decision by the ALP to keep the ABCC?
If anything the Unions have been very disciplined to keep their mouths shut about alot of the ALP policy (some parts of it frankly bad) in an effort to get them elected but there are some things, like the ABCC, which are so fundamental that something should be said. They should not be condemned for it. They should be applauded for it.
Knocking over Howard is the priority. No doubt. But sometimes there are things so fundamental to your existence that you have to say something. If anything, when done in moderation at the Unions have done, it will hopefully remind the ALP where it is from.
alex white wrote:
I didn’t say “People who condemn Labor Policy should be ashamed of themselves”.
I said people who say that “Labor deserves to lose” need to take a long hard look at themselves. Do those people prefer another term of the Howard Govt?
People are free to criticise Labor policy. I note that the union movement (ACTU, Unions NSW, individual unions, etc) are critical of the ABCC policy, but still are staunchly working towards a Labor victory (and the voting out of the Howard Government).
Nice attempt at a straw man though.
larrylaffer wrote:
alex white alex white
Mark - anyone that condemns the ALP on a single policy needs to take a good hard look at themselves.
your words…
alex white wrote:
Correct, my words.
Tell me where I say “People who condemn Labor Policy should be ashamed of themselves”.
Seriously, what are you trying to prove?
Myth wrote:
Does everybody forget about Mark Latham’s dealings with the CFMEU, especially in Tasmania. Unneccessary, and the unions got their just desserts when Howard introduced the workchoice legislation. If you are progressive and you cant just shut up about the Labor Party during election year and support it, than you are an idiot. You should be writing endorsements for Rudd, right up until he loses or takes power. Than is the time for the issues.
Post new comment