SA Footy

Barrie Cassidy's article on Julia's interview with Alan Jones this morning.


http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011 ... 149267.htm

I love the poll result on Jones' website.

Are you in favour or against a carbon tax?

No 98.7%

About time someone stood up to the prig.

Yeah it was sort of like "pardon me for talking while you were interrupting." I gave Gillard 10/10 for standing her ground against the irascible old prick. She'd be one of the few PM's ever to get away with it.

Not for a minute do I like Gillard, and yep, she lied to us all (typical of politicians unfortunately), however she was quite within her rights to hang up the stupid pri*k. I wouldn't have blamed her at all. I wonder what would've happened then?!?!

http://www.2gb.com/index2.php?option=co ... b250bb14,0

For people that missed it. Here is the audio for it

gadj1976 wrote:Not for a minute do I like Gillard, and yep, she lied to us all (typical of politicians unfortunately), however she was quite within her rights to hang up the stupid pri*k. I wouldn't have blamed her at all. I wonder what would've happened then?!?!

I don't think she lied to us in that pre-election statement about no carbon tax. She meant what we said but she had no way of knowing she would end up fronting a minority Labour government that is clearly run by the Greens.

Sky Pilot wrote:

gadj1976 wrote:Not for a minute do I like Gillard, and yep, she lied to us all (typical of politicians unfortunately), however she was quite within her rights to hang up the stupid pri*k. I wouldn't have blamed her at all. I wonder what would've happened then?!?!

I don't think she lied to us in that pre-election statement about no carbon tax. She meant what we said but she had no way of knowing she would end up fronting a minority Labour government that is clearly run by the Greens.

"Changed circumstances" are no excuse for not keeping your promises.
Keating wore that one out and it became obvious he never intended to honour pre-election promises because he had no respect for the voters.

Psyber wrote:

Sky Pilot wrote:

gadj1976 wrote:Not for a minute do I like Gillard, and yep, she lied to us all (typical of politicians unfortunately), however she was quite within her rights to hang up the stupid pri*k. I wouldn't have blamed her at all. I wonder what would've happened then?!?!

I don't think she lied to us in that pre-election statement about no carbon tax. She meant what we said but she had no way of knowing she would end up fronting a minority Labour government that is clearly run by the Greens.

"Changed circumstances" are no excuse for not keeping your promises.
Keating wore that one out and it became obvious he never intended to honour pre-election promises because he had no respect for the voters.

yeah and at least Howard took the GST to an election - showing considerable courage I would have thought

Ah, so 'never, ever' means until I change my mind at the next election?

How about when Howard promised 'no more taxes' and then proceeded to raise or institute 130 such taxes?

Out of all this, I presume you are all against a price on carbon?

redandblack wrote:Ah, so 'never, ever' means until I change my mind at the next election?
How about when Howard promised 'no more taxes' and then proceeded to raise or institute 130 such taxes?
Out of all this, I presume you are all against a price on carbon?

1. I'm against any politician thinking it is OK to make definite statements before an election then do the opposite.

2. I'm also against approving a price on carbon without supporting real change in technology being its stated aim.

3. I am in favour of setting up a fund to assist real change in technology, so long as it is protected from being wasted.

A carbon price without the funds being isolated for that purpose is just a new tax - that's where both the Greens and the Democrats have better policy than the ALP.
I'd like to see the policy affect all pollution not just carbon dioxide production.

I'm divided on the issue. I really don't know what it is.

Well .......as her previous leader did say "it is the greatest moral challenge of our time...."

Sky Pilot wrote:

Psyber wrote:

Sky Pilot wrote:

gadj1976 wrote:Not for a minute do I like Gillard, and yep, she lied to us all (typical of politicians unfortunately), however she was quite within her rights to hang up the stupid pri*k. I wouldn't have blamed her at all. I wonder what would've happened then?!?!

I don't think she lied to us in that pre-election statement about no carbon tax. She meant what we said but she had no way of knowing she would end up fronting a minority Labour government that is clearly run by the Greens.

"Changed circumstances" are no excuse for not keeping your promises.
Keating wore that one out and it became obvious he never intended to honour pre-election promises because he had no respect for the voters.

yeah and at least Howard took the GST to an election - showing considerable courage I would have thought

And actually lost the majority of the vote...
Libs/Nats - 5,413,431 (49.02%)
Labor - 5,630,409 (50.98%)

Not defending Gillard but as pointed out by someone she never knew Labor would end up in minority govt with the Greens & Indy's.

I just don't remember Howard saying too much about WorkChoices in the lead up to the '04 election either. It seemed to just magically appear after the election when the Libs ended up with control of the senate. Correct me if I'm wrong.

The last thing I want to hear is right-wingers whinging about a PM not being entirely truthful with the public. Both of them do it.

She should never had made the promise. Climate change was never going to go away and had to be tackled.

fish wrote:She should never had made the promise.

Obviously agree but unfortunately it seems to be the way the ALP are going these days, moving further to the right and trying to be as close to the Libs as possible so the ground can be fought on only the minimal differences between the two. Thankfully we have the Greens & Indy's in power to keep the ALP in check.

I think the ALP have dcecided being a pale imitation of the Libs is no longer the way to go.

In the last week or so, we've had some major differences in policy and attitude.

1 Taking action on climate change with this price on carbon. Abbott, opposed (climate change is crap).

2 Taking it up to the shock jocks instead of pandering to them.

3 Defending multiculturalism against the racist vomit from Scott Morrison, which was supported by Abbott. Shit happens.

redandblack wrote:I think the ALP have dcecided being a pale imitation of the Libs is no longer the way to go.

In the last week or so, we've had some major differences in policy and attitude.

1 Taking action on climate change with this price on carbon. Abbott, opposed (climate change is crap).

2 Taking it up to the shock jocks instead of pandering to them.

3 Defending multiculturalism against the racist vomit from Scott Morrison, which was supported by Abbott. **** happens.

True but we'll have to see if it sustained or just an attempt to stop bleeding votes to the Greens.

1. Only happened because of the Greens. There wouldn't be even a proposal for a carbon tax if the ALP were not in minority govt.

2. I haven't listened to any of that stuff because it's all crap but in my opinion it's about time they started sticking up for themselves rather than pandering to the kind of people that listen to those shock jocks.

3. They took awhile though and only after they sniffed the wind.

Gozu,

1 Agreed, but that's the reality of the current political situation. In his negotiations with the Independents, Abbott showed he would have done anything they wanted as well. He even agreed with almost everything Katter wanted! Not forgetting a billion dollars to Wilkie as soon as he asked.

2 Agreed.

3 Agree again, but it's nice to see a party no longer pandering to the lowest common denominator.

Just an idea out of left field ... why don't labor just try and be labor?

This might be a good place to post this as it's an interesting read. It was in Wednesday's Crikey email so is behind the paywall.

"Rundle: what’s wrong with Labor? There’s no reason to join"

by Guy Rundle

Where do ceremonies come from? They start as real functional events, then the world changes and they lose their function. Crucially, at some point, everyone forgets what the thing was for in the first place, at which point it becomes a venerated ritual. Thus Christmas, the actual summoning of the sun at the winter solstice by a celebration of rebirth. Thus, also, Labor Party reviews.

These will continue for centuries with the form they have now acquired. Labor grandees, who have run the party as a bureaucratic/administrative machine to manage GDP growth and foreign wars, will be summoned together to meet in camera for several months. No one will remember why, least of all they. Eventually they will emerge and intone the sacred texts —  “grow the membership … re-connect with the public … outreach to youth” — in a language they no longer understand (unaware that no one ever understood them). Then everyone will go about their business as before, as if nothing has happened.

Judging by the Bracks-Faulkner-Carr review, this process is 80% done. The preliminary report has the same ritual dances and chants, as ever: more power to the members, specific grants for outreach, a national organising officer and so on and so forth. All that’s missing is a response to the core question: why would anyone join Labor now in the first place? What is it for? What would be the meaning of such an act in someone’s life?

The answer to those questions are the questions themselves. There is no reason to join a party that has no ambition but to narrowly manage a peripheral capitalist economy, introduce the mildest of tinkering reforms, and march in lockstep with an increasingly
discredited and confused US.

The membership figures bear this out.

As the report reveals, and contrary to some expectations, membership rose during the Howard years, after a dip, and began to full precipitately after the 2007 election — by 20%, from 50,000 to 40,000. Some of the rise and then fall was due to the manic branch-stacking required to get a few dozy right-wingers over the line — most of that bewildered Turks being minibussed up and down the Great Ocean Road — and whose membership was then allowed to lapse, but far from all of it.

The only conclusion one can make is that people joined the ALP in the Howard years because, by default, it stood for something — that is, for not being the Howard government. Once it came to power and continued many of its policies in whole or part — on asylum seekers, Afghanistan, school funding and the NT “intervention”, inter alia —  membership fell off the cliff.

Labor had acquired an identity, defined against Howard’s positive one. Once Labor had to act in its own right the emptiness at the core of the party was laid bare. Joining Labor these days has all the existential heft of taking an entry-level position at a photocopier repair company, with branches in six states. You’re either after a permanent job, or you’ve made a fundamental error of judgement.

The ritual BFC review has the same powerpointy obsession with form as does any organisation devoid of real content. Recommendation after recommendation is concerned with nothing other than jiggling the machine and hoping that somehow this will make it work better. Voting ratios, conference procedure, outreach, community dialogue … how did anyone even manage to write this stuff down without being overcome by a sweeping sense of futility?

There is a prior step to working out why ALP membership is falling off a cliff — identify what the thing is that people are being asked to join. Labor has had several incarnations — Imperial Socialist Party from 1901-1942; Nationalist Social Democracy 1942-1983; Nationalist Social Market Party 1983-1996; £$%*&^! 1996-present.

Each incarnation may have been honoured more in the breach, but at all times there was, at the base, and however rudimentary, a theory and an ethic — an argument about how society worked, and how it should be changed, in line with an idea of how it should be. Even the third “social market” period — when Labor fell in love with neo-liberal globalisation — had an idea of how the proceeds from such should be plugged back into some form of social nation-building. It was pretty threadbare, but at least you could argue with it.

Now? Zilch. Nor is there any framework to develop one, which is in part why the two people who, in different ways, tried to create one — Mark Latham and Kevin Rudd — came to grief. There was no context which would have welcomed their ideas and thereby mitigated their personal failings. But it’s also the reason why developing ideas became such an idiosyncratic, individualist process in the first place — because the party, as a whole, has simply given up the practice of really doing it.

Nor will it start now. Labor will have to go through really bad times before it gets serious about really renewing itself as a party — through both retheorising society and rethinking how its ethic expresses itself in the 21st century. The ALP benefits from a unique quadruple lock of compulsory voting/exhaustive preferences/public funding/union dues — which can then be augmented with business contributions. Thus armoured, it can stagger on as an elite quasi-state apparatus run by a caste of life-long devotees for quite a while to come.

Many of its apparatchiks actively want a smaller party, one which can be manoeuvred more easily, which is why they always consent to reviews of the ALP’s arcane and impacted bureaucratic procedures by grandees who succeeded by mastering its arcane and impacted bureaucratic procedures. The genuine alternative would be a real and sustained series of conferences and conventions by the party, drawing in supporters and sympathisers, to try and define what sort of society it should be working for.

The party was founded in an era of collectivised class life, shaped by various religious, racial and imperial identities. That conception — dropping the racial bit — survived through to the ’80s. Partly because of global social and economic change, and partly because of the policies the Hawke-Keating government ramrodded, that collectivised base has utterly fallen away.

Now, to echo some points by m’colleague Keane, we live in a profoundly individualist and atomised society, in which people build identity through media and markets. Everyone now realises that this creates a cultural crisis of meaning. The Right deals with that by fusing free-market individualism with conservative ideals — patriotism, etc — which free-market individualism undermines.

Labor offers a pallid version of this. Sooner or later it will have to come up with something else — a genuine program which posits new ways of putting society together to respond to human needs and desires that atomised market life cannot offer.

Sooner rather than later, because eventually, also, the cash machine will stop working. Another global recession, a Chinese stall, and Australia will join the rest of the world in a fairly sluggish downturn. At that point Labor will be utterly discredited and new groups will emerge in its heartlands, drawing populist policies from both Left and Right in a new mix. Having lost its inner-city/left activist base to the Greens, it will lose its working-class base to the new populism. The forces that sustained it from 1967-1996 will squeeze it from both ends.

Should Labor renovate its ends, then its means will matter less. When it cannot think about its ends, then the focus on means becomes a fetish, obsessive and pointless, an empty ritual for a purpose long forgotten. There is no better demonstration of it than the questionable, in some ways tragic, history of the principals involved in the review.

Bracks is a nice guy manoeuvred into place like a cigar store Indian on a trolley, who led a government with no aspiration other than to manage. Bob Carr, who in his current role as Dymocks’ shil, trashes not only PIR but any notion of cultural protection — and beneath it, the notion that anything distinctively Australian is worth holding back from the market.

And most tragic of all, John Faulkner, who probably inspired many people to join the party by taking the fight to the government in the Howard era — and equal or greater numbers to quit perhaps — by taking the job of running a pointless and wanton war in Afghanistan in the years since. If they want this review to be more than an empty ceremony, they could start by acquiring a mirror.