|
|
Post by Mroh. on Nov 24, 2007 21:35:54 GMT 10
Labour in power in all states and territories - as much as some would see it, here, as irrelevant, and I can see how you would, this fact maybe is one of the proportionally bigger (or atleast genuine) risks here, that the coalition has pointed out - no counter balance between federal and state governments remaining. discuss or summin And just felt like saying, It'll be interesting to see who he turns his back on first.  firstthreadomg! |
|
|
|
Post by agentsaboteur on Nov 24, 2007 22:50:25 GMT 10
hehe the ghost of the howard legacy: kevin Rudd  |
|
|
|
Post by LiteraryPiano on Nov 25, 2007 0:21:42 GMT 10
Except that the policies of State Labor and Federal Labor, opposed to state Liberal and Federal Liberal barely differ.
The risks aren't any bigger than they were before.
The neoliberal agenda is going to be continued to be pushed.
The only bigger risk presented, which was highlighted in a SP article I read recently, is that, Labor has ties with the Trade Union movement, and might try to use that wedge to push that agenda (neoliberal one) further.
|
|
|
|
Post by LiteraryPiano on Nov 25, 2007 0:25:52 GMT 10
The thing that worried me the most out of this election was the amount of support the CDP got.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mroh. on Nov 25, 2007 8:56:53 GMT 10
Except that the policies of State Labor and Federal Labor, opposed to state Liberal and Federal Liberal barely differ. The risks aren't any bigger than they were before. The neoliberal agenda is going to be continued to be pushed. The only bigger risk presented, which was highlighted in a SP article I read recently, is that, Labor has ties with the Trade Union movement, and might try to use that wedge to push that agenda (neoliberal one) further. That's a very simplistic way of looking at it. The very fact that all governments belong to one political party serves to further centralise power in Australia. Despite what you may think, Labor and Liberal are different parties, and it remains those subtle - if you like - differences that maintain even the slightly looser atmosphere of democracy within the country. One could say, as I mentioned before, that if you don't like the coalition it wouldn't matter anyway, which is fair enough. The situation here highlights the problem with the current 'two party' system we have in Australia; whilst both parties are very similar, and definately more so now than ever, an increase in dominance as we see now of one of these parties is the last thing the country needs. If you believe that Labor will use it's ties with the Trade Union movement to push a neoliberal agenda, then this is again a risk heightened by what I just mentioned as it has vastly more freedom to do so. |
|
|
|
Post by LiteraryPiano on Nov 25, 2007 9:26:41 GMT 10
That's a very simplistic way of looking at it. The very fact that all governments belong to one political party serves to further centralise power in Australia. Despite what you may think, Labor and Liberal are different parties, and it remains those subtle - if you like - differences that maintain even the slightly looser atmosphere of democracy within the country. What atmosphere of democracy? The further centralisation is about as real as the "democratic" part of Australia. It's a two party system. Both parties recieve huge "donations" from business' and the ruling class. They are both ruling class parties. They both serve the same interests. When it comes down to it, it's a name and a face which changes. And we can see the way Morris Iemma bended over backwards for John Howard with just about ever fucking reform. Indeed, Iemma was as right wing as John Howard. It's a facade. Why? I can't see why it will make it any different. The direction isn't going to change, is it? It probably will, and of course it's a risk. But no more of a risk than the Howard government trying to crush the Trade Union movement - with obvious attempts like their attacks against the MUA , as well as the Work Choices legislation. |
|
|
|
Post by Mroh. on Nov 25, 2007 12:15:42 GMT 10
What atmosphere of democracy? The further centralisation is about as real as the "democratic" part of Australia. It's a two party system. Both parties recieve huge "donations" from business' and the ruling class. They are both ruling class parties. They both serve the same interests. When it comes down to it, it's a name and a face which changes. Nick, you're not saying anything I don't already know. You're missing my point entirely. The fact that they are the same kind of party is irrelevant - it's the fact that Labor individually moves in the specific direction that it does is the problem, when considering that they have the dominant vote in Australia, as seperate from the other similar Liberal government of Australia. If you really wanted to emphasise the point you've made you could just go ahead and say that Labor is a center left party, and so it is better that they are in government everywhere as opposed to the other realistic option which is the Liberal party. But that's not my concern, as I'm not talking about the relationship between the two parties. As I have already said, differences between the two parties are small, but that's not the issue. However, if you are trying to say that Labor is as bad as Liberal, then you're fooling yourself. There exist individuals within both parties that are very comparable to eachother, but think of the differences between both parties also. There's Medicare, for one. The education system. The Liberals 'equal' tax rates. Environmental policy. Foreign policy and differing attitudes towards relations with the United States. To say "they both serve the interests of the ruling class" and therefore it doesn't matter is incredibly simplistic of you. Would you feel as (un)comfortable if Liberal was in power in all states and territories? I doubt that you would. The fact that the less conservative of the two parties is now in power is a lot better than if it was the other way around. If you think that I am worried because Labor is 'bad' then you've clearly missed the point. As I've said, the situation highlights the problems with the two party system. Labor has many advantages in terms of public feeling. You've pointed out their link with the trade union movement - for one. They thrive on their 'more-leftist' image, and use, and will use it to their advantage. They, as the labor party have all opportunity in the world infront of them to get the working class onside after these past 11 years. Everybody is sick of the Liberal party (and probably loves Rudd's aborable fluffy pink rabbit smile). And let's nor forget that Rudd has the benifit of doubt, in the eyes of the Australian public. I have already acknowledged before hand outside of this discussion to you that the two parties are dangerously similar to one another. I don't see why you're trying to point this fact out to me, or, equally as confusing, why you're getting so hostile. But besides, we'll see how things go as time goes on, now, won't we? |
|
|
|
Post by thingstocome on Nov 25, 2007 12:55:32 GMT 10
Firstly:
It's not a two-party system just yet, minor parties still exist and can get in there...
Secondly:
Look, I'll be quite honest and suggest that my understanding of the political system is (i) shallow because I only studied it for a couple of years and (ii) theoretical because the closest we got was watching question time in both houses of Federal parliament and a brief visit to the State Parliament with school. Oh the media portrayal, as well as talk amongst friends. But the insight I've gained and the arguably cynical position I've adopted, to question everything anyone in and outside of politics does provides for a basis of reasonable argument.
It is obvious then, that as a not-one-hundred-percent-sure anarchist, that the debate should not just pertain to the inner functioning of the major political parties, but the political system as a whole. I'm not saying we shouldn't talk about the effectiveness or relevance of parties, but instead link that discussion to a wider view of the political system and modern landscape. We should look at the little picture and trace it back into the big picture.
Let's try a question like:
If Kevin Rudd promised to look at making Australia a Republic, what model do we think could work best in Australia?
|
|
|
|
Post by spikeyred on Nov 25, 2007 16:31:30 GMT 10
Mroh and ProperTea, I think perhaps you both started to debate subtley different things and then it stagnated a bit... Whether that is the case or not, my interpretation is that, while Mroh didn't state it directly, it was eluded to that it is a serious issue that *one* Party Machine controls nearly all of the Australian State. Indeed it is only *some* local councils that don't have ALP majorities. I think this is an issue as opposed to Libs controlling some state machinery and ALP controlling other parts, because it means that one part of the state will no longer be wielded against another part of the state in the populist interests of the competing parties. I give the example of Workchoices vs The Victorian Workplace Authority. In this case the state ALP government wielded state power against state power exercised by the federal government. My simple analysis of this is that the Vic. ALP did this as part of it's cheap populist workings, and although it was not a significant or self-made gain for the working class, it did offer a little bit more shelter than they would have had otherwise. As such, now that the ALP controls nearly all state power, it is highly unlikely to wield it against it's self in this manner, and this is a problem. Having said that, we had to fucking kick that smug racist anti-worker capitalist bastard out of power, simply to re-invigorate the working class and give them more confidence to escelate the struggle sooner.
As for Nicks point about Australia continuing in a neo-liberal direction, I think this is fundamentally true. I also think that the ALP's historical links with the working class and their organizations present a challenge. Quoting my national secretary "What Howard did with an Iron Fist, Rudd will do with a velvet glove". To elaborate on this, I think it is fair to say that the ALP is the ruling classes second eleven, or B-team, for going into periods where economic down turn is likely. This is because the working class has more trust in the ALP, is willing to cop more, and the ALP has more links with and more experience with, selling cuts, counter-reforms etc to the working class. For example, The Hawke Government did things the Howard government could only dream of! The Hawke Government de-registered two of the most militant unions in the country, the BLF and the Pilots Federation. The Hawke Government was also the government that managed to introduce 'The Accord', a class-colaborationist measure that was negotiated between the government and the ACTU to peg wages below inflation! Compare this with Howards inability to smash the MUA in 1998, his inability to Smash the CFMEU so far with the ABCC and the colossal failure of WorkChoices (Another piece of legistlation designed to boost profits at the expense of wages) that last night led to not only his government being defeated, but him even loosing his own seat!
Last night Rudd said in his concession speech he wanted to 'leave behind the old politics of big business vs unions' and 'turn a new page in Australia's history', I think he also said some stuff about "governing for all Australians" and 'cooperation', I might be misquoting or adding words, because I was pretty drunk chanting 'Howards Gone' last night while all the speeches happened. None the less I think Rudd's message is clear: He is against struggle, and therefore, he is no friend of his oft mentioned 'working families'.
Perhaps I'm turning this into more of an analysis of the election result than was intended by Mroh, but, I think Rudd's win isn't all doom and gloom and it presents the organized left with the chance to expose the ALP and push for increased class conciousness, militancy, struggle etc. And at least for us Marxists and supporters of Parties, will help the disillusioned rally around the call for a new mass workers party with a clear socialist programme!
Anyway Comrades, cheers to the spectacular fall of that Racist Bastard!
|
|
|
|
Post by chris on Nov 28, 2007 20:10:29 GMT 10
Geez you guys are a really into it. Ive never gotten fully into politics. I actually feel a little inferior in the presence of your superior knowledge. Am i the only one who falls into a pit of emo like depression during election time? I bloody hate elections and i cant stand mainstream politics. The thing i hate most about elections is that everbodys an expert on cup day. Fucking everybody. All these sheep that could give a shit about politics a month ago all of a sudden know whats best for australia.
A few hours ago i was chatting to my mate and we were talking about the price of rent in sydney and out of nowhere he tells me hes "Howard all the way." Ive known this bloke since he was a fetus and out of nowhere bang! He drops the howard bomb on me. So i asked "WTF?" His response was that "business is going to be fucked now. All that trade union shit is going to fuck business. I swear bro australia is fucked now with labor." Hey, fair call. The only problem with that is my mate lives in a share apartment in ultimo and has to catch a bus to his crappy job because he cant afford a car. His life is like totally over now with labor at the helm.
And then yesterday there was the semi hot milf at work whos a born again christian came over to ask me "Aren't you happy now that Mr. Rudd is prime minister?" My responce: "JOY!" Then she preceded to tell me, "You know Chris ive never realy been intrested in politics but me and my husband have been under allot of financial pressure lately and bla bla bla... Mr. Rudd ... bla bla bla ... Working families... bla bla more bullshit.." Well Natasha thanks for voting labor because now interest rates are going to fall out of the sky and burrow deep into the earths crust. Interest rates are going to drop so low that your mortgage is going to pay itself off. And you know what else? This crappy company we work for is all of a sudden going to give a damn about us and pay us a decent wage and then your going to be able to buy a new washing machine so you can clean the new clothes you can afford to buy and wear them to Hillsong on sunday so you can drop a 50 into the collection bucket! And its all thanks to Mr fucking Rudd!
I hate bloody elections. Labor, liberal, trade unions, peter garret, the environment, i hate them all. This election has been a complete success. Completely successful in making people believe that democracy is real and that their opinion matters and that who they vote for will at the end of the day make a difference.
|
|
|
|
Post by spikeyred on Nov 28, 2007 22:57:20 GMT 10
Rofl! Chris, I give your analysis my first preference  |
|
|
|
Post by agentsaboteur on Nov 29, 2007 19:51:17 GMT 10
please dont use pre-teen sexist terms on this forum thank you
|
|
|
|
Post by chris on Nov 30, 2007 1:55:08 GMT 10
please dont use pre-teen sexist terms on this forum thank you i did what to the who?  |
|
|
|
Post by wolfetone on Dec 11, 2007 21:21:10 GMT 10
indeed.
the countries always going to be fucked with the 2 party system.
|
|
|
|
Post by wolfetone on Dec 11, 2007 21:23:03 GMT 10
another issue that many people not lefties but the australian population should have is that the party that wins the most votes doesnt neccersarily win. this seats system is ludicrous. its like the geri mander all over again. some seats have 60 000 people in them while some only have 20 000.
wake up people.
please
|
|
