The real battles to come
Lebanon being bombed? Gaza shelled? Rockets falling into Israel? Threat of all-out war in the Middle East? All of these are but nothing in the face of the vast, roiling internecine preselection struggles about to be waged in New South Wales.
Praise God, put down the ammunitition and pass the electoral enrolment forms! (PDF)
First up is the Clash of Civilisations in Epping, in which the well-connected, led by the head of HREOC Pru Goward, and representing the electively aristocratic ancien régime of NSW anti-Labor (and a few conveniently enrolled and joined-up Maronites) are going to go up against the secret forces of the well-resourced and reactionary, in the form of the Liberals’ ugly right wing in Greg Smith, a candidate so unappealing that even Miranda Devine picked her side against him.
I’m not going to call that one yet, because today has been announced a far greater and more epic struggle between the forces of Sort-of-Good and Sort-of-Good. It’s Labor Left agin’ Labor Left in the boho inner-west. The redistributed seat of Balmain is so new that even the SEO don’t list it amongst the electoral districts, but the conflict is as old as ecology. The greatest competition for any kind of resource—in this case votes—usually comes from within the species.
I don’t know how the local Greens do their preselections, whether it’s a decision taken in secret by a revolutionary vanguard of ex-Baader Meinhof and Red Brigadiers, or whether it’s transmitted to the faithful by the water spirits and the nyads in the wilderness. However they do it, they’re going to have to face the survivor of the Balmain Thunderdome: in which two women enter, and one woman leaves.
It’s going to be a good month for pure, unadulterated stoush.
UPDATE: I don’t think I can miss Four Corners.
Four Corners spoke to more than 100 Liberals during the making of the program which reveals deep concern by members about branch stacking, vote rorting and the direction the party is heading. Some Liberals have agreed to talk despite their belief that they may be expelled from the party for doing so.
Declining membership in the Liberal Party, some say, has made it vulnerable to takeover by a well-organised group with a narrow agenda which they believe will damage the party’s electoral prospects.
UPDATE II: Four Corners transcript in full is here. Read it and weep (laughing, in my case):
JOHN HYDE PAGE, FORMER YOUNG LIBERAL: Branch stacking can involve a range of things. I mean, at its most basic, it’s just introducing people into the party who wouldn’t otherwise have joined. At its most extreme, it’s signing people up to the party without telling them. It’s paying for their memberships, it’s bribing people to join the party.
JANINE COHEN: And is that happening in the Liberal Party in New South Wales?
JOHN HYDE PAGE, FORMER YOUNG LIBERAL: Oh, it’s rife!
JANINE COHEN: How do you know that?
JOHN HYDE PAGE, FORMER YOUNG LIBERAL: Well, I was involved in it for a long period of time.
UPDATE III: from Arleeshar comes the link to the upcoming book which I intend to buy and read immediately upon publication.

Minotaur wrote:
As my information has it, the Greens preselect via a method known as the `lunatics taking over the asylum’ (not really, I just made that up). There’s no executive councils or recourse to higher powers, just rank and file.
Hence, situations like that seen during the 2004 election, where Bob Brown is forced to say with a straight face that the biggest pro-marijuana campaigner in Nimbin has clearly been pre-selected because local members felt his policies on education and social issues were superior.
dibo wrote:
mid-2004, greens campaign headquarters for page -
liam wrote:
It’s true, there is no humour like cheap drug humour. Are you Cheech or Chong, dibo?
Seriously though, I suspect drug laws are going to have a serious place this election, with the libs so strongly against not throwing dope-smokers and ravers in the clink.
One of the messages the ALP should be quietly whistling is “if you don’t want Joh-era drug laws, don’t vote for the Liberals”.
dibo wrote:
cheech - there’s something about a stoner with an accent a bit like a el gringo gato out of a speedy gonzales cartoons that i like.
anyway, [dibo puts his thinking spliff down for a second] the drug law thing is a potential problem. you’ve got the nutters on the socially conservative side of the spectrum in both major parties who want to crack heads, and the social liberals who are much more like “so long as a stoner doesn’t park his car at speed in my lounge room who cares” which i dig much more.
there’s still a bit of me that thinks we should just fucking well nationalise the drug trade to put the dangerous bloody amateurs out of the market (you know, the ones who think that ajax just lifts your eccy high that much higher) and go for a full-on harm minimalisation strategy but you’d be dodging housebricks if you actually tried to implement it.
just goes to show that it takes 50% +1 to win an election, but it only takes a few nutbars to stop governments putting good policy into practice.
liam wrote:
Now you’re talking my language. In fact I might just volunteer for command of an opium gunboat for risky privateering/smuggling missions up the Shoalhaven River.
Alex wrote:
So what’s your call on both the epping and balmain preselections?
Myth wrote:
Drugs seem to be the new stoush agenda.
About time.
Why are drugs and self-identifying “left elements” so intertwined?
The young democrats in America are proverbial.
(n.b. liberals and hippies)
dibo wrote:
wow, way to put an easily taken out of context phrase in a comment! :D
by that i meant deal on a kinda prescription/state vending system. decriminalise the use, keep criminal penalties for those dealing outside the state-approved vending system. treat it as an issue of illegal trade rather than some ‘reefer madness’ style moral panic.
people would have less reasons to not seem medical help, less reason to steal to support addictions, it’d reduce personal crime and bad health outcomes.
state regulation rather than state retribution seems to me to be a much better idea.
oh, and no idea on the preselections! liam?
liam wrote:
I’m picking Smith to take Epping. As to Balmain, I’m yet to form an opinion, let’s see what happens in the next week.
Zoe wrote:
Oh, bless I read this minutes before 4 corners started.
puts up feet, opens new packet of fair trade chocolate and starts snickering quietly
dibo wrote:
ha! John “i’ll tape your lectures” Hyde-Page!
larrylaffer wrote:
Who is the pure form of Leftie? It should be they who win ;)
B.S. Fairman (not verified) wrote:
And for those who missed it, Four Corners is replay after Lateline on Wednesday. Sometimes however, it is a week behind. Not sure at the moment.
Oz wrote:
Wasn’t John Hyde Page that Liberal SRC Presidential candidate who dumped all those copies of Honi Soit in Victoria Park pond on the morning they were distributed because they all ragged on him?
Minotaur wrote:
snarkle that’s freaking hilarious … and so Young Lib :D
Do you really think so? Don’t forget Laura Norder always makes herself known around election time. I’m not saying there’s no desire for it in the wider public - it’s just that I sometimes think that to the government, the wider public means Alan Jones, Ray Hadley, and John Laws.
As I implied here, Goward could well benefit from the timing of that 4 Corners episode. If Smith wins, it will be perceived as another step in the Clarke takeover (which of course, it will be). The Libs were running so scared about the whole thing today that they didn’t even take the time to slang Labor over Peter Breen.
In regards to Balmain … given that I’m a rank-and-filer in said seat, I’ve decided I probably should exempt myself from discussion until the preselection’s over.
Oz wrote:
Lateline just added to the dumping on the Liberals with video footage from previous NUS National Conferences (which I’ve attended). There’s footage of Libs chanting “We are racist! We are sexist! We are homophobic!”
There was also an interview with the indigenous elder who had to endure a singing of God Save The Queen during the welcome to country.
EvilPundit wrote:
It’s good to see more and more people mocking politically correct boo-words like “racist”, “sexist” and “homophobic”. Hopefully soon, anyone who uses such a word seriously will be the target of public derision.
Leigh (not verified) wrote:
Oh yes, because there is no such thing as racism, sexism or homophobia. Are you scared to call your prejudices by their true names?
liam wrote:
Hmmm, which years, Oz? Do I know you?
…
Evil, you’ve never seen public derision like the Liberal students at an NUS conference. Imagine a football crowd of fifteen people, too drunk to walk or speak at 11am, breath smelling of vomit and cigarette ash, shouting muffled obscenities from the back of the room and waving pictures of the Queen like Russian Orthodox nannas with ikons. It’d be comic if it weren’t so comic.
On the other hand, even in that condition they can usually string a sentence together better than the Broadleft, and when sober can come up with very cruel and clever stunts. Jemma McGinley’s ballot-throw one year during the count, when she got together the Liberals’ ballot papers and threw them up in the air in the polling room to see a mass-factional scrabbling brawl (“fifty-two pickup!”) was classic.
Oz wrote:
Yep you do Liam, I gave you a call on Friday about Fabian Soc stuff.
I’ve been for the last two years so I saw the events that were talked about and shown on Lateline and know they weren’t taken out of context.
Amongst the mob of drunken yobs known as the Young Libs at NUS there were also local councillors and staffers for MPs in NSW. Makes the Libs seem so inspiring doesn’t it.
EvilPundit wrote:
I think I went to an NUS conference one year. Or something like it. One of the attendees was Joe Hockey, now a Minister.
Sadly, the escapades weren’t nearly as drunken or funny as those described here. However, I did score a free trip to Adelaide.
Naomii (not verified) wrote:
That puts you in my vintage EP.
Post new comment