Progressives Don’t Need a New Narrative

January 26, 2017
Written by: Dr Victoria Fielding
157 Replies

Progressives don’t need a new narrative. We already have one. We just need to stop neglecting it.

Remember when you were a child and you used to ask your mum for a new toy and she’d say ‘you have plenty of old toys that you hardly ever play with, why don’t play with them?’ Sometimes you would. After going through the old toy box, you’d rediscover an old favourite – a Game Boy that just needed new batteries, or a skateboard you’d forgotten about over winter which just needed a dust off and could entertain you for hours. That’s what we need to do with the progressive narrative. We need to dig it out of the back of the cupboard, brush it off, polish it up for modern day usage and all sing it from the roof tops. We don’t need a new one. We just need to up-cycle the old one.

I have read so many articles recently by fantastic left-wing voices and by impassioned people who care deeply about defeating dangerous ideologues like Donald Trump who will make the already bleeding wound of inequality hopefully not irreparably worse. Owen Jones asked the question: ‘Can the US left craft a populist alternative that convinces the millions of Americans who are angry and despondent about a society rigged against their interests? The future of the American republic is uncertain – and it may depend on the answer to that question’. Rutger Bregman suggests that too often it ‘seems as if leftists actually like losing’ and that the old-school underdog socialists are ‘Dull as a doorknob. They’ve got no story to tell; nor even the language to convey it in. Having arrived at the conclusion that politics is a mere matter of identity, they have chosen an arena in which they will lose every time’. Even though Bregman has some fantastic policy ideas, as usual, he hasn’t answered his own question: ‘what will this progressive story look like?’. So, once again, we’re all left feeling around in the dark for a unified thread to hold all our well-meaning ideas together.

In Australia, a divided progressive movement is hampering progress. Rather than fighting for and with Labor, the party of the working class, many of the more privileged progressives, who mostly live in inner cities and don’t identify as working-class, nor see any point in joining a union, have leached away to a new toy: The Greens. This leaves progressives fighting amongst ourselves with the battlelines drawn over identity politics versus labour movement priorities, and the old progressive narrative discarded by the side of the road.

I read with a mix of amusement and annoyance that ‘200 of the most exciting young people’ who were invited to attend the ‘Junket’ conference are not just fed up with Labor, but are also fed up with their newer toy, The Greens, and instead showed ‘strong support for some kind of new organisation, potentially even a political party… to channel the frustration felt by young people, and other sections of the population’. Maybe I’m just tetchy that I wasn’t invited, because I’m clearly not young or exciting enough, but the idea that young progressive Australians aren’t content to join the Labor Party and make it their own, or even to join the Greens (because that’s less work than changing the Labor Party), no, they are now wanting something brand new again, to wipe the slate clean, yet don’t seem to be able to actually explain what it is their new party would be except that it would ‘un-f*ck politics’ (their words not mine). Well, that just shows how we got into this mess in the first place, doesn’t it?

Anyway, this article is not going to be yet another contribution to the ‘progressives need a new narrative’ debate without giving you my concrete suggestion about what that progressive narrative is, because that would be hypocritical. No, as I said, we already have a narrative which is perfectly useful and relevant to all of us – the inner-city-lefties, the working-class-suburbanites, the rusted-on-Labor voters, the environmentalist-hipster-Greens and the even-more-hipster-too-cool-to-join-someone-else’s-movement progressives. We just need to be better at talking about it. And most importantly, we just need to be better at talking about it AS A UNIFIED MOVEMENT. IN SOLIDARITY! As a shorthand, we could call this narrative the Golden Rule. This is what it looks like:

Your rights are my rights. Your community is my community. Your environment is my environment. When you are better off, I am better off. When you are sick, I am sick. When you are poor, I am poor. We are all in this together. So, we need to work together to uphold each others rights: rights at work, right to be free from harm, free from discrimination, free from poverty, a right to a good education, good healthcare, a right to marry who we love, to live peacefully practicing any or no religion we like. When you have a job, I have a job. When your environment is safe, my environment is safe. When you are prosperous, I am prosperous. When you are happy and well, I am happy and well. We all do our bit and everyone benefits. I care about you and you care about me. The community is better off when the community is better off. That is all that matters.

That’s the story we should be telling. Try it on. It goes with everything you want and everything I want too. And if it sounds familiar, it’s probably because you’re already using it and just didn’t realise it was right there in front of you the whole time. Now, let’s stop wasting time looking for it and get to work using it.

Watch this space for more suggestions of how this narrative works in practice.

Post Views: 578

157 comments

Login here

Register here

JaquixJanuary 26, 2017 at 2:45 pm

Good start to the conversation Victoria. I like the way Bernie Sanders says it all again but in a refreshing way that cuts thru the nonsense. What a shame he didnt beat Hillary for nomination. Ive also long thought the progressives should unite but also have a new name. Start afresh without the baggage. Even disenchanted old Lib voters might be able to vote for the new party,vwithout the old tag, whereas they couldnt bring themselves to vote for the “dreadful Labor party” their parents talked about. There is a lot of power in the right name! My own pretty ordinary suggestion is the Progressive Peoples Party, the PPP. The Libs and Nats are only in power because they united (sort of) otherwise they would be in the wilderness. (Where they belong).

stephengb2014January 26, 2017 at 2:47 pm

I could never understand the use of the word ‘greens’ to identify a left of politics political party.

It seems to me to be a name you would pick when you didn’t realy want to be taken seriously, but do not get me wrong I admire Bob Brown and Scot whats his name, its just that the name ‘GREENS’ is reminiscent of the ‘tree huggers of the save the forest protest, just not a serious political party.

Sorry but there you are!

Kaye LeeJanuary 26, 2017 at 3:06 pm

Both parties’ names reflect their origins of which they should be proud.

Once again, I am troubled about a call to unite whilst pigeon-holing us with such dismissive labels – “the inner-city-lefties, the working-class-suburbanites, the rusted-on-Labor voters, the environmentalist-hipster-Greens and the even-more-hipster-too-cool-to-join-someone-else’s-movement progressives”

Frederick FrothJanuary 26, 2017 at 3:26 pm

Speaking of green politics, saving the forests, the eco-sphere, and thus by extension humankind too, because we are totally embedded/entangled and dependent upon the biosphere, please check out these three references;
http://www.sacredcamelgardens.com/literature/reality-humanity.php
http://www.sacredforests.earth
http://www.openfield.earth

win jeavonsJanuary 26, 2017 at 3:30 pm

The Mutual Respect Party ? On this Australia day I feel we should be looking forward, not back, grow past being Just Aussie, even just human and become , as David Suzuki said, biocentric. We are all on this planet together, what one does all are affected by, so it is time to leave the individual behind, and embrace inter-dependence .All humans are entitled to the same rights as a Trump or a Turnbull. Not just bare survival, and all life is ultimately connected.

corvus boreusJanuary 26, 2017 at 3:35 pm

I think the notion that to be an environmentalist automatically means you are some kind of urban trendy is plain laughable.
As if many of the people who value the natural world and prioritize it’s preservation don’t live or work out in the bush.

Trying to clumsily cram people into small boxes labelled with clichés is not a particularly good start towards unifying disparity.

Trish CorryJanuary 26, 2017 at 3:56 pm

An excellent piece of writing as always Victoria.

Kate AhearneJanuary 26, 2017 at 4:49 pm

Victoria, thanks for this .I think most of your readers will like your paragraph beginning, ‘Your rights are my rights…’ Wonderful stuff, and if that narrative did indeed fit all of the groups you mention, all would be well – full steam ahead. But it doesn’t. Just one great big example – the Labor Party’s policy on refugees.

JexpatJanuary 26, 2017 at 5:02 pm

Ms. Rollinson (much like her ideological counterparts in the Clinton wing of the US Democratic party) doesn’t seem to grasp that most folks don’t see Labor Right and its sycophants as progressive. And rightly so, based on the record. The best progressives can hope for from thier mob is a few bones, crumbs and half measures tossed out every once in a while, as their faceless men permit.

Thus being the case, they’ve created a void. And politics, like nature abhors a vacuum. Create one, and someone or some group will come along and fill it.

Had they not endeavored so tirelessly to create this void… had they held true to tradational Labor values, the party that they whinge about incessantly and irrationally wouldn’t have gathered up a constituency in the first place. But they did not- and will not, and hence, their primary vote has been trending downward. It’s fallen to, what was it at the last election: less than 34% ?

Victoria RollisonJanuary 26, 2017 at 5:15 pm

You all know how much I love it when I plead with progressives to unite and I get the same old tired arguments about why you can’t possibly support the only progressive major party with any chance of forming government. Thanks for all your help (not!). To those who, when they look at Labor, only see asylum seeker policy, your privileged world where only one policy matters to you is a very nice place to yell at people from, but you’re once again proving you don’t have the pragmatism to see how unproductive this is to those who desperately need Labor’s health, education, economic and industrial relations policies and don’t have the luxury of identity politics to make themselves feel warm inside. You’re seriously not understanding my request for progressives to unite despite our individual differences. Shame.

Möbius EckoJanuary 26, 2017 at 5:48 pm

“faceless men”

Straight from the Murdoch media attacks on Labor, all the while they and the Liberals were putting names to these supposed faceless men, so how could they be faceless.

So just who are these faceless men of the Labor party, the Silence?

Kate AhearneJanuary 26, 2017 at 5:59 pm

Victoria, You say, ‘To those who, when they look at Labor, only see asylum seeker policy, your privileged world where only one policy matters to you is a very nice place to yell at people from…’ I’m assuming that this remark is addressed to me, as I seem to be the only commenter so far who has mentioned Labor’s Policy on refugees. Your remark has actually made me quite cross. I did not say anything that might suggest that I ‘only see asylum seeker policy’. I mentioned it as ‘Just one great big example’. And you don’t have any idea of my world. Yes, it IS privileged compared to the lives of the refugees, but please don’t make assumptions like this about people who are responding (and disagreeing) with something you have written. I have not yelled at you, Victoria – I do not yell at people. But sometimes I really would like to.

corvus boreusJanuary 26, 2017 at 6:04 pm

Victoria Rollinson,
There was a single reference to refugee policy by a single poster.
Throwing around inaccurate generalizations (particularly derogatory ones) is not particularly conducive towards broader coalescence into greater unity., but instead constitutes a particularly malignant form of identity politics.

helvityniJanuary 26, 2017 at 6:19 pm

Be those Labor men/women faceless or in your face, they are still miles ahead with their progressive policies. I don’t belong to any party but I support both Labor and the Greens.

Gillard did well working together with the Greens and with progressive Independents. As for the Libs who wants to support a party, which wants to take you back to the Fifties.

On another political blog the Liberal commenters used the word ‘progressive’ as a putdown. I’d be rich if I got a dollar for each time they called me progressive… 🙂

helvityniJanuary 26, 2017 at 6:24 pm

…another insult was “an asylum seeker lover”, WOW!

Kate AhearneJanuary 26, 2017 at 6:35 pm

Corvus, Yes. you have put it very nicely. Why on earth would a writer make such divisive remarks if she’s looking for unity?

Victoria, And as Kaye has already pointed out, why would you use this kind of language, as you do in the body of your article, to describe groups of people if you hope to unite to a common cause? – ‘the inner-city-lefties, the working-class-suburbanites, the rusted-on-Labor voters, the environmentalist-hipster-Greens and the even-more-hipster-too-cool-to-join-someone-else’s-movement progressives.’

Trish CorryJanuary 26, 2017 at 7:17 pm

Oh Jesus give me strength! Talk about missing the entire point just to have a go at the author. Unless you are in denial that those groups exist Kate Ahern, Victoria has a very strong point. It isn’t divisive. It is pointing out the ugly truth. An ugly truth that many need to have a good hard look in the mirror about.

What I am reading here in the comments is the same cry that people who support Hanson use. “Just because I support her – doesn’t mean I’m a racist!” They all cry. The hard pill to swallow is that by condoning and supporting her policies they are indeed racist.

Are all Trump supporters inherently misogynistic pigs? Hell no. Did they just vote in a misogynistic pig who will write into legislation and make misogynistic piggy things law? Hell yes! Did they just condone his misogynistic piggery by voting for him? Hell yes!

Did those on the left who decided to lift Trump up higher by kicking Clinton down, because it is ok to be extremely imperfect as a man, but not even slightly imperfect as a woman? Hell Yes they did!

The hard pill to swallow for some of the ‘leftists’ listed here, are that they are more damaging to the progress of the left by constantly attacking the only left party who can get rid of the bastard Liberals. Constantly pushing Labor down, only lifts the Liberals up.

It is more important to some to deny Labor power and openly and aggressively prevent it because they do not agree with Labor’s Asylum seeker policy and in doing so, deny so many disadvantaged people a chance at a better quality of life. If we are talking about having Labor in or the Liberals in on Health – we are actually just talking about giving people a chance at life – to actually remain living. Think on that very significant point, please. Labor give people a better chance of actually staying alive, but Labor’s asylum seeker policy is more important to withhold a vote on, than voting for people staying alive.

I would prefer that the broad left actually got behind Labor and stop their incessant whinging and moaning about their one cherry picked policy, whatever that may be out of a gamut of 100 so far that will provide great benefit to Australia.

Does Labor always have it right? No, they don’t. Put they are the only major party who the country can be pushed further to the left to make it so. It is time some people realised that. It is a major source of frustration for me.

Why would a writer make such divisive remarks? Because they make a strong and valid point. Victoria always has a very strong and valid point. Every single article, without fail. That is why she is recognised as one of, if not the best political blogger in the entire country. I have never ever read even one comment on any article of hers that successfully refutes her claims.

JexpatJanuary 26, 2017 at 7:46 pm

Victoria Rollison wrote: ” I plead with progressives to unite.”

No, you don’t.

That much is obvious.

And as preditable as Trish’s posts.

Wherein anyone who dares to point out _____(fill in the blank) will be denounced as ‘bullies.”

Kaye LeeJanuary 26, 2017 at 7:57 pm

“You’re seriously not understanding my request for progressives to unite despite our individual differences. Shame.”

The Labor Party should be ashamed at how they let down their supporters by wasting six years whiteanting each other. They had vastly superior policies that we were all fighting for and they shot themselves in the foot and delivered government to the Coalition purely because of their own personal ambition.

Gillard did the hard yards on policy and then you threw her under a bus.

Kate AhearneJanuary 26, 2017 at 8:04 pm

Trish You begin your remarks by saying, ‘Talk about missing the entire point just to have a go at the author.’ You are not in a position to have any idea what motivated me to to make the points I did, (unless, of course, I actually made them for the reasons that I said I did!) I certainly did not make those remarks ‘just to have a go at the author’, and there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that I did. What you have said amounts to a slur on my character, and it is not acceptable.

You finish by saying, ‘I have never ever read even one comment on any article of hers that successfully refutes her claims.’ I think you did read some of those comments, this very day, although you certainly don’t appear to have recognised them as such, Just my opinion, of course.

Most of the stuff that you have written in between the opening and closing statements is a bit of a mystery to me. I’m not sure if I can figure out what you’re trying to convey But just so that we’re perfectly clear, I am no fan of either Hanson or Trump. However, when I find the Left behaving in ways that I cannot support, I hope I will have the commitment and the courage to say so. (And asylum seeker policy is only one area that needs to be scrutinised.)

Matters NotJanuary 26, 2017 at 8:17 pm

That is why she is recognised as one of, if not the best political blogger in the entire country

The there’s nothing more to be said. Is there?

nurses1968January 26, 2017 at 8:22 pm

Kate AhearneJanuary 26, 2017 at 4:49 pm

“Victoria, thanks for this”

then……

what/who caused the about face?

trishcorryJanuary 26, 2017 at 8:40 pm

Roswell what I “did” to Kayelee was express an opinion that an information dump with no argument is a severe problem in today’s alternative facts climate. I expressed an opinion like everyone else does on here, that I was disappointed not to see more.

Some type of analysis a compare and contrast perhaps. I apologised twice for being critical. I stated it was more an author to author opinion. You know like what happens in the real world amongst authors. No one has to agree with it.

But my opinion still stands that we need more articles such as this with solid arguments, rather than listing something like fascism without any critique. I was not rude, I was not abusive, I did not comment on the Author personally. I made an opinion from my subjective viewpoint as a writer about the structure of Kaye’s article. I really do not feel that was “doing anything” to Kaye. I find that fascinating considering the pointed attacks towards Victoria here.

Robert G. ShawJanuary 26, 2017 at 9:12 pm

Victoria,
an interesting read.
Yes, we do need a new narrative. And have for some time. I’m genuinely surprised that you would doubt either the veracity or the urgency of that.
The old one died an unmourned miserable death, the death of the traitor, when it decided to co opt Liberal-lite policy.
It wasn’t really at fault. What could the poor thing do?
The working class wasn’t really “working class” anymore.
A MacMansion, 3 new cars, one a new Holden sports ute, in metallic blue, hardly speaks to struggle street now does it? Alas, it jettisoned the poor as readily as Clinton just did in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Ohio.

No, we need a new narrative. The Labor party needs to reflect on its ideological commitments and decide whether it intends to uphold them. Decide. One way or the other. This political tap dance is unbecoming.

I read your proposed narrative with a smile.
It read like something from Fourier or Owen.
If you have a road map as to how to get there, I’ll drive.
Till then however, we’re just waiting by the side of the road…..

Kate AhearneJanuary 26, 2017 at 9:13 pm

Nurses, No about face. I pointed out the big thing that I really liked about the piece, and I pointed out another big thing that I was concerned about. I didn’t agree with or like everything in the piece, nor did I dislike or disagree with everything in the article.

Trish, Nobody has attacked Victoria. Disagreeing is not attacking. There have been attacks, though, as has already been pointed out.

RoswellJanuary 26, 2017 at 9:20 pm

Trish, it’s interesting that you see them as attacks. I see them as people sharing an opinion.

I haven’t seen anything like an attack. I’ve seen people disagree with Victoria, and they are entitled to do that.

I’d be very surprised if any writer here expects every reader to agree with everything they say.

What’s my opinion? I’m Labor to the core and always will be. I don’t support all of their positions but I will still vote for them. I loathe their stance on asylum seekers, but like Victoria says, Labor is still a better option. Not only do I loathe their policy on asylum seekers but I will stand up and say so. People have been doing that, and you think it’s an attack.

Do you consider my comment to be an attack?

trishcorryJanuary 26, 2017 at 9:29 pm

Well I’m glad that’s settled that people can disagree with the author. A few moments ago that meant “doing something to them.” Goodnight Roswell.

Kate AhearneJanuary 26, 2017 at 9:42 pm

Trish, You weren’t simply disagreeing with Kaye. You were trying to tell her how to write, you tried to insist that she should have done it the way you would have done it.

Anyway, the two comments threads have become tangled together, so in case there are readers who haven’t seen Kaye’s piece, it’s here: https://theaimn.com/live-fascist-regime/

Kaye LeeJanuary 26, 2017 at 9:47 pm

I did not feel attacked and I don’t think Victoria has been attacked either.

Kate AhearneJanuary 26, 2017 at 9:49 pm

Kaye, I’m glad you didn’t feel attacked. And I certainly can’t see that Victoria has been attacked. I certainly felt attacked myself, though.

Kaye LeeJanuary 26, 2017 at 10:07 pm

I’m just trying to settle things a bit Kate so we can get back to discussing why the progressive vote is divided and what we may be able to do about it.

Kate AhearneJanuary 26, 2017 at 10:09 pm

Matters Not, I owe you an apology. I didn’t see your most recent remarks on yesterday’s article on the Women’s March until just now. (Been having big problems with my connection with AIMN, although all seems to be sorted now.) You were right. I was the one who conflated remarks from two different threads, not you. i used the same turn of phrase in both threads, apparently. Anyway, the thread on the Women’s March article has closed, so I hope this apology will catch up with you.

Kate AhearneJanuary 26, 2017 at 10:19 pm

Kaye, I can see that, and I do appreciate it. But I did need to be very clear with Trish – I was very cross. Sadly, it is apparent that I did not succeed. So, having seen at least a couple of the reasons the left is divided, let’s get on with it.

jimhazJanuary 26, 2017 at 10:20 pm

[Gillard did the hard yards on policy and then you threw her under a bus]

and we lost other ministers with good EQs as a result, who would have made the ALP a better party now by giving less power to the right, even if she had been defeated by the bulldog with rabies.

Kaye LeeJanuary 26, 2017 at 10:36 pm

I think one of the problems is that any criticism of Labor is viewed almost as treason. I have made the comparison before that, whilst I love my children dearly, that does not make them immune from criticism or an expectation for them to do better.

jimhaz, I agree – we lost a lot of good ministers in that purge. I think Richard Marles has done an atrocious job. Instead of firmly pointing out that the offshore detention centres were opened as a temporary measure to deal with a warning about an imminent influx of refugees, he just parrots “Labor supports offshore detention” in his blancmange way as he hosts his folksy show with Pyne on pay tv.

@RosemaryJ36January 26, 2017 at 10:38 pm

Respect for others, working to help those who need help and treating others as you would wish to be be treated are, to me, the necessary foundations for an ethics driven society. I was brought up in a Presbyterian household where your conscience was your guide. Now an agnostic I still hold on to the ethics but think that the superstitions and trappings of all organised religions seem to place stumbling blocks for harmonious living. Compassion, empathy and acceptance of difference should guide all decision and policy making. The economy should be our servant not our ruler and you can be rich without needing great wealth. And if I were an advisor to the PM I would say “Bring the refugees here and negotiate with Indonesia to establish facilities for assessing refugee claims while we help finance their support in the interim.” Surely it would cost less than we are currently throwing away on destroying their lives in Nauru and Manus?

JexpatJanuary 26, 2017 at 10:38 pm

Matters Not wrote: “Then there’s nothing more to be said. Is there?”

Well, there is the Queen Victoria bit…. with the mortar board on the head. And the juvenile photo memes about :gasp: socialists!

Probably best to leave the narrative with: enough said there….

ozibodyJanuary 26, 2017 at 10:53 pm

Thank you Victoria, I’ve enjoyed reading your article. In particular, the following really caught my eye … and my attention :-

” …. that ‘200 of the most exciting young people’ who were invited to attend the ‘Junket’ conference are not just fed up with Labor, but are also fed up with their newer toy, The Greens, and instead showed ‘strong support for some kind of new organisation, potentially even a political party…… ”

So many folk appear obsessed about ” NEW ” , which, to me, indicates a wish for the ‘ complete package, all done and dusted ‘ … no involvement required, or desired ! …. Simply ” Drive Away no More to Pay ” ! …. Perhaps we deserve the Consumer Society … throw away ethic, we’ve allowed ourselves to be sucked into ? !

For those of us who wish for ‘ change ‘ ( to a Social Democracy, perhaps ) should seriously consider the Labor Party , and be prepared ,through concerted effort,to , ‘ shatter it to bits and then remould it nearer to our Heart’s Desire ‘… apologies to Omar Khayyam .. 🙂 ..

Most folk should know there’s nothing really NEW in the whole wide world , and History is of little interest to most !

silkwormJanuary 27, 2017 at 1:26 am

Labor and Greens unite in their criticism of everything that the Libs do.

Robert G. ShawJanuary 27, 2017 at 7:14 am

Trish,
‘Did those on the left who decided to lift Trump up higher by kicking Clinton down, because it is ok to be extremely imperfect as a man, but not even slightly imperfect as a woman? Hell Yes they did!”

I take your point (in this and in the Australian political context).
However, one’s own side, one’s own political conscience, should never be immune from interrogation or critique. I understand, as I’m sure do a few others here, that installing the Left in power will yield a greater good for a greater number. That’s the hope, that’s always been the end game of our ideology. Yet when we see that hope diminished or compromised by dilution of policy, by abrogation of morality, by political fluckery as vile and demeaning as anything our foes have managed, then people will tend to loosen their embrace of the Labor cause.
I think that’s the prevailing rationale for the disquiet you, or Victoria, are encountering.

My view is oddly enough, the world is an amazing place, is it not?, identical to that of Roswell’s. Left from birth to death; the DNA of liberty and equality and communitarianism passed on from fathers and mothers to sons and daughters.
And so the paradox: every Labor government is worth the compromise of principles – each small sacrifice of a part never being greater than the sum.
That’s the compromise Trish, but not the interrogation.
I will continue to critique that which offends, or reeks of hypocrisy, or gives off the rancid stench of inequality and moneyed liberalism, of moral cowardice, and political naivety.
I see it as a duty; to refine, to work through, to better, policy in the service of those greater goods. If, and this is the gamble, those hypocrisies, or that cowardice, becomes too much, tips over into Conservatism, them i’m afraid we’ll need to revisit – bag of blood for transfusing in tow.

As for the Greens, I have little faith, and even less respect. I believe any union detrimental to Labor.

Good to see you back, by the way.
I do hope you write and comment more.

Ella MillerJanuary 27, 2017 at 8:48 am

To All who commented on Cody’s letter to the PM, in the piece about unemployment.
His letter to the PM has been published in today’s Examiner (Tasmania) page 19.
I only wish they did not feel the need to edit out his grammatical errors…it was not necessary to do this as they did not detract from the message.I could have helped him correct but to him the message was important…so I did not.

Kaye LeeJanuary 27, 2017 at 9:06 am

Ella, I agree. Cody owned that correspondence. His message was clear. Nevertheless, that does not detract from the pride he should feel at having his voice heard. That a person so young is taking the time, not just to learn, but to think about it and to care enough to act, gives me hope for the future.

Congratulations Cody on your first published work. May it be the first of many.

Ella, you must be so proud.

Kate AhearneJanuary 27, 2017 at 9:19 am

Well done, Cody. It’s a big pity that they fiddled with your work – it was quite an ignorant thing for them to do, although they thought they were helping. I liked your version better.

PhilJanuary 27, 2017 at 9:43 am

Love this debate. I stand with Victoria and Trish. I have screamed at the ALP many times for what I saw as policy capitulation but then I always stepped back after reflecting on context. There is only one government at a time. Opposition is not a position of power and is further hamstrung today by a conservative, biased, corrupted media. In this situation merely avoiding the political wedge becomes paramount.

If progressives would only take the longer view ie put aside the gripes and work in solidarity with the aim of unseating the vile neoliberals – then when that goal is achieved and power resides with progressives the policies that so antagonise us can be thrown out

In fighting plays right into the neoliberal hands. They foster division, jealousy, anger. Resistance ignores the bait and presses on with the long haul.

helvityniJanuary 27, 2017 at 9:52 am

“Ben Chifley overcame public opposition in allowing Jewish refugees after World War II. Robert Menzies, on coming to office, continued the acceptance of the displaced people of Europe. Harold Holt skilfully, but in defiance of public opinion, commenced the dismantling of White Australia. John Gorton and Gough Whitlam continued the process. When Malcolm Fraser responded to the anguish of the Indo-Chinese people, he knew that he was acting contrary to public opinion. Bill Hayden and then Bob Hawke supported him. Yet no-one today would argue that these leaders got it wrong. We applaud their courage and leadership. John Howard and Tony Abbott were the first post war leaders to break from that bi partisan tradition and engender fear of newcomers.”

John Menadue on Pearls and Irritations ,on Australia Day

Howard and Abbott indeed started this fear campaign, Hanson has been a good student there…

guestJanuary 27, 2017 at 10:08 am

Jexpat @5.02 pm

I would be interested if you could explain how a “void” could get within an ace of winning the last election.

And why this “void” is now 54-46 against the Coalition crowd, according to at least one poll.

Kaye LeeJanuary 27, 2017 at 10:20 am

One of the divides, as I see it, is that people who aren’t invested in party politics would rather discuss policies whereas those who are party members would rather discuss how to win an election. Often the first group feel let down by what they see as the compromises/capitulations done in the name of populism. I understand that you cannot enact policy from opposition so this creates a dilemma. Do you compromise your principles in order to appeal to focus groups?

Personally, I would like to see a multi-party executive to eliminate the “winner-takes-all” aspect that corrupts the process.

Ella MillerJanuary 27, 2017 at 10:56 am

Kaye Lee,
to me focus groups are only needed if you don’t know what you are doing and what your policies are.
Smart politicians know what the electorate THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO REPRESENT feels and needs.
If the message is similar in a party why do you need focus groups?

Ella MillerJanuary 27, 2017 at 11:15 am

Kaye Lee, Kate,
thank you…I am still astonished by Cody’s depth of understanding.
I think I will have the whole page laminated and give it to him on his 18th birthday.
Yes I am so proud of all the young people who are capable of such deep thought…and there are many…and yes our future depends on them but also us being able to bring up children who are capable of critical thinking.
PS still no response from any listed politicians.

Kaye LeeJanuary 27, 2017 at 11:30 am

Ella,

My daughter wrote to our local member complaining about the lack of mobile phone reception considering it had been an election promise for the last two elections. She eventually got a personal email back with much more information than I had been able to ever find out. It took a couple of weeks though. maybe longer. On the other side of the coin, said member has blocked me from her facebook page and never responded to any of my emails or phone calls.

They should realise the value of listening to our youth and our youth, uncluttered by allegiance and cynicism, should remind them that there are solutions.

Michael TaylorJanuary 27, 2017 at 11:36 am

Ella, a few days ago I noticed that a Facebook group published Cody’s letter on their page (they must have seen it on The AIMN). I was informed, at the time, that it had had almost 40,000 views and a large number of people had shared it on their own Facebook page.

Kate AhearneJanuary 27, 2017 at 11:41 am

Thanks, Ella, Now Cody is a published author, and not only that, he’s also had his first taste of editorial interference! A most valuable experience. And, as Kaye says, he has been very clever in his choice of Grandma! Congratulations to both of you. P.S. Michael’s news about fb is wonderful.

ozibodyJanuary 27, 2017 at 11:56 am

Kaye Lee 10.20 am.

Very well expressed worthy sentiment Kaye !

The ” Will to Win ” can overcome all obstacles … except …. when it becomes the ” NEED to Win ” ….. compromise sweeps in ! ….. and when that ‘ compromise ‘ comes from an ‘ opposing ‘ force, it is naturally contains a ‘ tainted ‘ element.

Compromise from ‘ within ‘ is generally healthy. The lack of ability to effectively compromise ( absence of Wise Heads – regardless of age / gender ) has facilitated the emergence of ‘ Labels ‘… e.g. Left, Centre, Right … along with further variations of ‘ degree ‘ within these!

When my mind goes ‘ here ‘, I have to wonder just what a Master Stroke that ( legendary ? ) 0.1% has achieved over time! … and, on that strain, note it has taken a long, long time …. whilst applying that ” Will to Win ” ?!

The Trump saga is exploiting it’s absence of Social Democracy simply by capitalising upon the ” New ” element ( populism ) , and, whilst the marketer within me counsels against mentioning an opponents name, the O.N. rallies along similar lines …. with similar ( personal ? ) intent ?

Before departing, may I pose this question ……. ” How far back do we have to dig to find the ” Orators ” .of Australian Politics ? ” ….
,,.( Robert.Mensies and Jim.Killen spring quickly to mind) ….. and, what may the art of oratory, and it’s driving force ( perhaps ) imply ? …is the question simply a reflection of my ( considerable ) age ? … 🙂 …

Ella MillerJanuary 27, 2017 at 11:58 am

Kay Lee so proud of your daughter ..well done to her.As for being blocked …I would wear that as a badge of honour.

Michael Taylor
WOW , I am speechless. thanks
Kate thanks …it took a while to sink in LOL.

Michael TaylorJanuary 27, 2017 at 12:03 pm

Ella, just enquired, and it’s now 45,000 views.

Kate AhearneJanuary 27, 2017 at 12:05 pm

Michael, WOW! I wonder if you or anyone can give a link to the fb post. I’d love to share it with my fb friends.

Michael TaylorJanuary 27, 2017 at 12:09 pm

Kate, linked below. It’s probably well down their page by now though.

https://www.facebook.com/Tony-Abbott-Worst-PM-in-Australian-History-151576228341304/?ref=bookmarks

Kate AhearneJanuary 27, 2017 at 12:18 pm

Thanks Michael. I found it. The link goes through to Photos, but I found it under Posts. Shared now. The great thing is that this is the original ‘unfixedup’ version.

Michael TaylorJanuary 27, 2017 at 1:17 pm

I was please about that too, Kate. I was also pleased that they credited it to Cody.

Kaye LeeJanuary 27, 2017 at 6:49 pm

“To those who, when they look at Labor, only see asylum seeker policy, your privileged world where only one policy matters to you is a very nice place to yell at people from, but you’re once again proving you don’t have the pragmatism to see how unproductive this is”

If I was running a party where one issue was a problem for many potential supporters I would do something about that issue rather than dismissing it as identity politics. You have abandoned those who might vote for you to pander to those who never will.

Victoria RollisonJanuary 27, 2017 at 10:37 pm

Thanks Trish for your kind words. And for sharing my frustration at finding that literally without fail, everytime I write about Labor, no matter what topic, there is without fail a comment about asylum seeker policy. I don’t feel attacked by this type of thing but I am bored and frustrated by it. It’s one-track, unthinking, repetitive, tired old crap. The same people who stick to this old anti-Labor narrative, interestingly, stick like glue to the Greens and never have a bad thing to say about them. Where were these people when the Greens were voting for a neoliberal attack on pensions? I would expect a backlash from true progressives, but no, the Greens supporters are too busy peppering off-topic comments about Labor’s asylum seeker policy. Still. Yawn.

Kate AhearneJanuary 27, 2017 at 11:07 pm

Victoria, Just for the record – I am not a Greens supporter. Can’t speak for others.

RoswellJanuary 27, 2017 at 11:17 pm

Victoria, I think you’ll find that Trish is not the only one who gave you kind words.

Matters NotJanuary 27, 2017 at 11:25 pm

a comment about asylum seeker policy. I don’t feel attacked by this type of thing but I am bored and frustrated by it. It’s one-track, unthinking, repetitive, tired old crap.

Really? A one-track, unthinking, repetitive, tired old crap – bored and frustrated .

Yawn as much as you like, but the reality of mandatory detention began with Labor – remember Gerry Hand – and is now part of the political common sense. In short, Labor created the low moral ground and now refuses to rise above it.

But perhaps I am part of the ‘unthinking’ group?

JexpatJanuary 27, 2017 at 11:30 pm

The fact that folks are still engaging with Queen Victoria’s (that’s what she calls herself) obsessions and narcisism -which can be seen ad nauseum on her blog, twitter feed and elsewhere (wherein there’s nothing to show she cares about anyone other than herself- and whatever ‘tribe” she aspires to…be paid by?) is somewhat disheartening.

The bottom line is that much of what we see- repeatedly- from her and a couple of others here is in many ways the same sort of thing that Trump did.

paulwalterJanuary 27, 2017 at 11:44 pm

Yes the narrative or critiique is basically correct. Both sides keep nit picking instead of sitting down together and talking stuff through. Far more to gain than lose but it wont happen because wounded pride is a severe task master.

Trish CorryJanuary 28, 2017 at 12:21 am

You are welcome Victoria. I am a true fan of your work. I think you are an exceptional writer and I will continue to promote your work on all my social media platforms. Keep up the great work that you do. You are a very positive voice and one who challenges the norms in our political narrative for the bright future we need.

Michael TaylorJanuary 28, 2017 at 12:30 am

Jexpat, Victoria has the right to call herself whatever she likes on Twitter. I had noticed that dozens of people changed their ‘name’ on social media to reflect nobility in response to Tony Abbott’s knighthood to Prince Philip. It’s done as a joke.

And it appears that you don’t like what Victoria tweets. Don’t follow her, if that’s the case.

Michael TaylorJanuary 28, 2017 at 12:33 am

PS: I have followed Victoria on Twitter for many years and I can confirm that she did indeed change her Twitter name within days of Tony Abbott’s knighthood to the prince.

JexpatJanuary 28, 2017 at 12:41 am

And here comes Trish again:

A person who, be forewarned: if you try to earnestly her her with a project- but end up somehow crossing her, she may stab you in the back- and perhaps attempt to defame you on other forums, when called on by another of the small, close knit set of the “we hate Greens crew.”

All after having a childishish foot stomping temper tanty, leaving AIMN -and posting elswhere tthat she wasn’t coming back.

This is all on the record, just as Queen Victoria’s bits are. Just as James Moylan’s bits were.

Sorry this sort of thing has to be said, but sometimes for the sake of honesty, it does.

JexpatJanuary 28, 2017 at 12:57 am

Michael:

Anyone has the right to call themselves whatever they want- or put whatever hat on they might like on their head.

Yet, those choices do… say things. Just as what gets ‘tweeted does.” Just as bio’s do.

We don’t necessarily have to like or dislike what’s tweeted on anyone’s feed, but what’s tweeted over time does tell a story. And it’s a story that folks, if they would like, can see for themselves. And see if that story is consistent with other angles (such as the original post here).

That’s all that I’m saying here: with respect to honesty.

JohnoJanuary 28, 2017 at 6:27 am

Wow, another shit fight…. stephengp2014, I am happy with the name greens, but in our wonderful new world of upgrading and out with the old and in with the new, maybe I am just a wee bit old fashioned.

corvus boreusJanuary 28, 2017 at 6:34 am

Kaye Lee (6:49 27/1),
If i was running a political party and, after years of constant public demand, saw a credible poll indicating overwhelming public support (>80%) for a federal anti-corruption investigation, I would be doing a lot more than some talk about talking about it later.
Then again, I viscerally despise political corruption, believe that such is systemically occurring throughout our federal governance, and do not gain financially benefit from glaring flaws in the current system.

corvus boreusJanuary 28, 2017 at 7:17 am

I would add that if Shorten/Labor act as indicated and propose/pass a motion for the ‘Establishment of a Select Senate Committee to examine the case for and against a Federal Integrity Commission’, there is credibility to the composition of the committee.

Last time around the members chosen appointed were 2 LIB-NATS (current policy opposes), 2 LABS (current policy opposes), the sole remaing PUP (?) and a former Family First turned INDI (?).
The GRNs, who, for all their obvious flaws, have supported the establishment of an independent federal anti-corruption body for many years, and have tabled several bills proposing such, were deliberately excluded from official participation in discussions.
That looked very suspicious, since the 10%-ers obviously have some reasonably well-advanced thoughts on the matter.

It looked very much like the deliberate formation of ‘just the right kind of committee’.

Victoria RollisonJanuary 28, 2017 at 7:47 am

Jexpat, not that I care what you think of me, but Michael is right: Queen Victoria is a joke based on Abbott’s Knights and Dames, which stuck. And no, I’m not paid to write or tweet or anything. Glad you dislike what I’m saying, shows it challenges your thinking.

Victoria RollisonJanuary 28, 2017 at 7:48 am

Roswell, also thank you for your kind words and your dedication to commenting on my posts.
Cheers

Kaye LeeJanuary 28, 2017 at 8:44 am

” we just need to be better at talking about it AS A UNIFIED MOVEMENT. IN SOLIDARITY! ”

Speaking as what you would label as an “even-more-hipster-too-cool-to-join-someone-else’s-movement progressive”, who “frustrates and bores” you with my “one-track, unthinking, repetitive, tired old crap” and lack of “pragmatism”, I don’t feel particularly inspired to join you in the trenches dug by the Labor Party.

This is not just about asylum seekers (though I find the dismissal of that festering sore unacceptable). It is also about the populism that led to the knifing of two sitting PMs. We were told Rudd had to go because he was impossible to work with. Ok I suppose but that was shown to be rather disingenuous when Labor then dumped a PM who was renowned for her negotiating skills.

And then when I heard Shorten say “We believe in climate change, we don’t believe in passing the problems of pollution to future generations and our focus will be on renewable energy and there is going to be no carbon tax,” I wanted to scream. Where was the courage to support what they knew was the right thing to do?

If you want people to join together then stop belittling them.

Kate AhearneJanuary 28, 2017 at 9:16 am

Victoria, ‘Glad you dislike what I’m saying, shows it challenges your thinking.’

Trish CorryJanuary 28, 2017 at 10:33 am

Jexpat – you sound like a very creepy stalker – a very delusional one at that. What a bold statement to make about someone you don’t know. Do you have nothing else better to do with your time?

nurses1968January 28, 2017 at 12:13 pm

It seems there is a little group that must have a saved folder, all prepared for a Victoria Rollinson or Trish Corry or come to think of it Sean Stinson article, same lot, same M.O.
Trish, add conspiracy theorist as to posters and you have Jexpat profiled

Kaye LeeJanuary 28, 2017 at 12:45 pm

Oh the irony

Kate AhearneJanuary 28, 2017 at 1:46 pm

Kaye, Yes, you’re right. it’s not just asylum seekers. It is also, as you say, the politics of carbon and climate change and the ‘knifing’. (Although I can understand the original knifing of Kevin, the knifing of Julia is pretty much incomprehensible to me – and to replace her with Kevin AGAIN!) There’s quite a list of things about the Labor Party that could do with a bit of clear-eyed scrutiny. I just thought I’d add a couple to your list

The fact that the party has allowed the situation to arise whereby it is now next to impossible to replace a leader who’s not quite up to the job.
The fact that not all of the rorters are on the LNP side of politics.
And here’s a little one from the last election. Here in Tasmania, Lisa Singh, who had been doing a very good job for her state, was relegated to the last place on the Labor ticket for the Senate. She got back in because a hell of a lot of Tasmanian Labor voters took the trouble to number every box on the Senate ballot paper so that they could put Singh first. That’s a lot of voters who didn’t like what the party (or the ruling faction) had chosen to do.

The list goes a lot further, and I’m sure other readers have their own items to add to it. The cracks are too wide to be papered over – they do need to be addressed. And no amount of name-calling or denigration of people or groups of people is going to fix anything. And no amount of ignoring a problem is going to make it go away.

Oh, Oh, Oh, the irony.

Kaye LeeJanuary 28, 2017 at 1:55 pm

They did the same to Louise Pratt in WA replacing her with Joe Bullock who ended up quitting because he couldn’t contain his homophobia.

I was also disappointed about the backflip on the Schoolkids Bonus and on the lowering of the RET particularly when they have a policy of 50% renewables by 2030.

I understood the rationale behind cutting the single parents pension – grandfathering had led to people being subject to different rules and payments – but that was a bad choice of places to look for savings, particularly when the grandfathering would end in the not too far distant future. A lot of pain for miniscule gain.

Cutting university funding to pay for Gonski was also disappointing even though they had overseen record increases.

It was wrong to let the mining companies dictate the MRRT without input from government departments just because you are scared of an advertising campaign. But at least they got it started and could have tweaked it later.

corvus boreusJanuary 28, 2017 at 2:01 pm

KL,
You mean nurses1968 launching a completely unsupportable (thus most likely false) claim of a group conspiracy, then immediately accusing another poster of being a conspiracy theorist? Ironic, but unsurprising.
Such logical inconsistencies and vague slurs seem to constitute her main contributions to this site.

Kaye LeeJanuary 28, 2017 at 2:17 pm

Agreement could be injurious to your reputation cb. Suffice to say you are a perspicacious bird. Moving right along…..

Kate AhearneJanuary 28, 2017 at 2:25 pm

Thanks, Kaye, and I’d forgotten that example of the WA Senate debacle – that was parochial of me. It’s getting to be a significant list of things that some of us are not happy about with Labor. Some issues are perhaps more significant than others, but so far nothing that might be called insignificant. I wonder if other commenters have anything to add.

nurses1968January 28, 2017 at 2:32 pm

Kate Ahearne
I am pleased Lisa singh got re elected but the fact is it was her own left faction of the ALP in Tasmania who voted her onto the unwinnable spot
And Kate, “not happy about with Labor”. there are a myriad of other parties for you to vote for, no one holds a gun at your head

Kate AhearneJanuary 28, 2017 at 3:12 pm

nurses, I don’t give a flying fruitbat which faction it was that did the dirty on Lisa Singh. What I care about is that ANY faction would behave that way.

As for all those other parties I could vote for – I don’t want to vote LNP or Pauline Hanson or even for the Greens. I want to be able to support Labor wholeheartedly, but the way things are, I can’t do that.

This is a serious question, nurses. Do you believe that there is absolutely nothing at all in or about the Labor Party that needs to be addressed, nothing at all that could be better than it is?

nurses1968January 28, 2017 at 3:24 pm

Kate Ahearne
Of course things can change within the ALP that is why they have Policy committees, tactics committees , branches, membership Union involvement etc.
It is an ongoing process and ultimately a set of policies {like Bills 100} will be there for the voters to decide.
Policies need to be acceptable to a majority of voters not just alleged progressives as they make up about 15% of the voting public.
When policies are released and an election rolls around they will either sink or swim on that basis.
Bottom line is, Labor will decide policy and direction and if it isn’t up to your expectations don’t vote for them

Kaye LeeJanuary 28, 2017 at 3:30 pm

I must stress that I was very happy overall with the Gillard government. I have pointed out a few things that didn’t sit comfortably but the list of groundbreaking legislation would take pages. I found her an outstanding leader of whom I was proud. No-one is perfect. I wish criticism was not taken as insult.

Kate AhearneJanuary 28, 2017 at 3:40 pm

Kaye, I agree about the Gillard government. I think history will treat Julia Gillard very kindly indeed.

nurses, Thanks for all that info. Which are the things you would change if you could?

Trish CorryJanuary 28, 2017 at 4:10 pm

Test.

Trish CorryJanuary 28, 2017 at 4:10 pm

Hmm ok. I can’t post my comment. but I can just post ‘test”

Kaye LeeJanuary 28, 2017 at 4:14 pm

If it was long, try splitting it up Trish. Sometimes it freaks out with long posts or a lot of links.

Robert G. ShawJanuary 28, 2017 at 4:28 pm

Well said Nurses, a common sense reply.
There will never be, can never be, a complete policy package. The nature of the
beast is compromise.

Those that seek a wholesale package belong in Idealism 101.
And are best avoided; there is no sensible, practical rebuttal to the question “but, what if….?”

It’s at this very juncture that I side with Victoria and Trish.
Of the two currently available for now, and the foreseeable future, despite the pixie dust dreamland hopes of some, Labor is our best bet.
No question, no argument.

And to those that place their entire critique on the single policy – asylum seekers for example – well they are for reproach: the whole greater than the sum of its parts.

Meanwhile, Trump drops his executive order.
And I for one, am smiling at the chutzpah.

Damn, this is gonna be a fun ride!!!

🙂

Kaye LeeJanuary 28, 2017 at 4:33 pm

It would be a very ugly world with no idealism.

Robert G. ShawJanuary 28, 2017 at 4:48 pm

Perhaps,
but it’s an ugly world with it – look at where we are now.

Idealism, tempered is my outlook.

It makes me laugh and welcome and dread and critique a freak occurrence like Trump all at the same time!

Try it.
It’s like running through a field of knee high wild flowers in the north coast hinterland.
Naked.

It will dissuade you of earnestness.
And spare you NOT the uglier sight of having to stare into the mirror of our own complicity.

Spare you not.

Kaye LeeJanuary 28, 2017 at 4:54 pm

“spare you NOT the uglier sight of having to stare into the mirror of our own complicity. Spare you not.”

You wax lyrical Robert. It makes me feel like you have never read a word I have written, but nice turn of phrase.

Please spare me the frolic imagery, I can only take so much reality with my idealism. One man’s liberation is another woman’s nightmare.

Robert G. ShawJanuary 28, 2017 at 5:27 pm

“wax lyrical”?
Hardly.
I’m trying to communicate an idea.

Yes, I’ve read the words you’ve written.
Not all, admittedly.
But who can blame me?

Yours is a thankless task.
Pity, the ruling motif.
Despite the accolades weighing you down, daily.
How are your shoulders?

For the life of me…..I don’t know how you do it,
without cringing.

Perhaps you do.
hard to say….this side of the screen.

– Trump is our invention.
Best not to underestimate his reach.
Best to keep the mindless Left criticisms to a minimum.
Best not encourage those that know no other way.

Executive order number 6.
At least the man is keeping his promises.
It will affirm the trust of those in Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania who gave him the throne.
And confuse the Democrats, and the Left, who are still bickering over intersectionality.

Is it true that Linda Sarsour dropped several tweets heralding the righteousness of Sharia??
I read 8 Left news outlets and blogs that said it was a lie.

it must be true, I thought.

Lo and behold……
😉

Kate AhearneJanuary 28, 2017 at 5:38 pm

Steady on, Robert, please.

RoswellJanuary 28, 2017 at 5:45 pm

I see that the man who loves dishing out insults has returned.

Trish CorryJanuary 28, 2017 at 6:08 pm

I think the example of Louise Pratt is a perfect example in context of Victoria’s article.

The Liberal party has anti-woman preselection policies which aim to make it hard for women, since it’s inception and the men in blue ties will not budge on this. Instead of those on the left defined within Victoria’s article; instead of pushing for more women on the conservative side, or championing more for this in general, it is easier to cherry pick and criticise Labor for one isolated incident. This is a regular observable phenomenon and obviously not just by me, because this article is about just that (not written by me).

Despite Labor having very defined women friendly policies for pre-selection, a commitment to affirmative action, women mentors, champions of Quotas, most women on the front bench ever. Most women in a shadow ministry ever, the Party with the first Female Prime Minister. The Party with the first woman premier in WA, NSW, VIC, QLD and TAS etc., etc., it is easier to cherry pick one instance and present Labor as a party which is very bad for women.

My personal thoughts on why some on the left do this, is they think that it will lift up the Greens (their ‘true left). However, all it does it lift up the Right.

Trish CorryJanuary 28, 2017 at 6:09 pm

When non-party aligned voters read such claims online, they automatically do not dedicate their vote to the Greens when those on the left continuously try to put Labor in the bin. They turn to a right wing Independent, or Hanson, or even the Liberals. Because they are not particularly engaged, but the hypocrisy they just read about voiced online or in the street, or at the checkout, sends their vote to a party that may be actually harmful to women.

These types on the Left – always critical of Labor push down the left and lift up the right.

It would be much better if those on the left, instead of cherry picking isolated incidents to make a negative point about Labor, did something that was actually leftist. Champion change within conservative ranks, insist women in the Greens be placed in winnable seat/s in the lower house, instead, there are those on the left who are happy with just having Adam Bandt, because their criticisms of a male in the only winnable seat for the Greens so far are not in abundance.

It is fair to be critical, but such criticisms should be put into a context of this is what we have, this is what was done, how can it be redressed. But that is not possible, because it is evident to a staunch Labor person like me that those who continuously complain about Labor are oblivious to the core values of the party, or the actual inner workings of the party. Even someone as myself who is in a branch has a different experience than say someone in Victoria. So those on the outside looking in, are certainly not the experts they always claim to be.

Trish CorryJanuary 28, 2017 at 6:09 pm

The key is that where criticism is warranted, the Labor value is to seek to redress this, through the development of policy and party rules. The idea of Labor being a true progressive party, really goes over the head of many on the left. Otherwise, they would cease the negative cherry picking to suit their own self-serving bias.

Those who are serious about redressing inequality for women in politics and want to actually see women in power, in a party that can form Government; would join the Labor Party. When men like those in the Pratt case, decided that their idea was a good idea, these left women should be at the table, shouting at these men that they are wrong and they will not support it. Then they would demand through conference that policy is written to ensure this type of thing never happens again. Labor woman and Labor men, both called this out. A new policy would ensure OR more serious women at the actual table, would ensure such idiocy from men would never happen again.

My point here should not be misconstrued as it always is that people cannot be critical of Labor. My point is there are those on the left, who are always critical of Labor above all else, always are critical of Labor, out of context, or always remain silent on Labor’s wider agenda and don’t do anything real to to action change. However, I believe they continuously cherry pick and present Labor in a negative light, because they foolishly think it is good for the left (or the “true left” – the Greens). However, all they do is lift up the right.

Trish CorryJanuary 28, 2017 at 6:10 pm

Thanks Kaye. However, I couldn’t even get onto the site before, not even on my phone. But I did split it just in case.

Kate AhearneJanuary 28, 2017 at 6:22 pm

Trish, You say, ‘ …it is easier to cherry pick one instance and present Labor as a party which is very bad for women.’ Make that two instances, please Trish. Louise Pratt in WA and Lisa Singh in Tasmania. And I don’t recall that anyone suggested that it was done because Labor is a ‘party which is very bad for women’ – Maybe I missed that bit, and I’ll be happy to apologise if you can find it and point it out to me. But I think that’s something you assumed.

Let me ask you, Trish, if there were three things you would change about Labor tomorrow if you could, what would they be?

Trish CorryJanuary 28, 2017 at 6:27 pm

I stand corrected.. Cherry pick two. Please don’t miss my point. I think my point is well constructed, not pointed at anyone and I’ve taken the time to take any emotion out of it. in the hope that that people may actually take my comment seriously.

I hope that suffices for the commentariate on AIMN.

I think you have missed my point about what this type of narrative infers to others. How others hear the narrative. How what they hear turns into votes.

I am not getting into a personal tete te tete about my ‘personal feelings’ as this is not the point of my comment. I’m not interested in any deflection. I would appreciate discussion in the context of my reply.

Kaye LeeJanuary 28, 2017 at 6:34 pm

Happens sometimes to me too Trish. I just see the AIMN header and am unable to post. The gremlins fix themselves eventually.

I have never accepted the “but what about them” defence. My response has always been, as a teacher and a mother, and even to a degree in this conversation, “We are talking about what you did”. (you meaning the Labor Party in this case).

It is the Labor Party that I wish to support. You say ” left women should be at the table, shouting at these men that they are wrong and they will not support it”. Consider this my version of doing that. Surely the party is still interested in the opinions of non-members about things they might improve?

I cannot speak for others but you ascribe motivations to me that just aren’t correct, particularly in regard to the Greens. And I doubt anyone here would be swayed to vote for the right by our discussions.

Kaye LeeJanuary 28, 2017 at 6:42 pm

To Robert,

Don’t applaud, just throw money

Trish CorryJanuary 28, 2017 at 6:47 pm

I think where we differ Kaye is that my field is as an organisational behaviourist – I see patterns in narrative. i see consequence of narrative. Things like lived experience, phenomenology, constructed meaning and emotional contagion, symbolic interactionism inform my view.

Of course the party is interested in the opinion of non-members. However, no party is absolutely perfect. This however, is a standard that as a Labor member I feel there is a huge chunk on the left who continuously criticise Labor for not being perfect, at the detriment of the left. If Labor was perfect, then there would not need to be a progressive party.

Perfection is not static. What formed views of women’s role in society in the 1970’s for example, is not the same view now. I do feel the Labor party plays a strong role in shifting the narrative of women in leadership.

Often there are pockets in any organisation or group, who will use any opportunity to support their own agenda – including political parties. Labor is a political party and not immune to this. However, as a collective, we can apply a risk management view to this and redress this happening again. However, it is up to those who decide to join the party, who have a voice in what this change is.

I’m not singling you out, my view is just a general observation. It is a phenomenon of the left. In particular the AS policy as pointed out earlier. This is a very difficult policy to debate online, because it is a very complex situation. It is a true ‘wicked problem’ in the sense of the word. However, the only major party who can be pushed to the left by strong voices on this issue is Labor. I do not see the point in denigrating Labor for the Liberals to win, if anyone cares at all about Asylum Seekers. Labor’s policy has an entire range of safeguards and measures to ensure humane and just treatment – however there are those on the left who scream that Labor’s policy supports torture. Those types of emotions by those on the left, do have an impact on others and it does nothing to really pick apart Labor’s policy. It does not lend itself to saying – OK this is acceptable, but we need to improve on this. With a policy that deals with people’s lives, although it is not my personal ideal, screaming that it is about Labor torturing human beings, does nothing but keep these human beings there when the Liberals get back in when these people put Labor last.

Kaye LeeJanuary 28, 2017 at 7:02 pm

“the only major party who can be pushed to the left by strong voices on this issue [asylum seekers] is Labor.”

And I will keep trying despite the discomfort it causes.

In July 2013 Victoria wrote…

“I guess where I’m feeling most confused is trying to reconcile my feelings about the policy, with the underlying dread that Rudd is just doing this to win votes. But then, isn’t beating Abbott, and stopping him turning back boats, a justifiable motive for doing whatever it takes to win the election? And is the PNG solution really as evil as many people are making out? I haven’t decided, but I appreciate the opportunity to think aloud, to analyse the situation”

But then Labor added boat turnbacks to their policy as well.

I still share the unease that Victoria once felt and I think it important to discuss, as she once did too, particularly in light of what we now know about the abuse and mental and physical harm that goes on there.

“Things like lived experience, phenomenology, constructed meaning and emotional contagion, symbolic interactionism inform my view.” Is there anyone for whom that doesn’t apply?

Trish CorryJanuary 28, 2017 at 7:17 pm

I share unease about the Asylum seeker policy too – but I don’t over react over it and scream that Labor are the same as Liberals so put both of them last, in the hope of some deleterious state this means that the Di Natale will be Prime Minister. Complex policy such as this takes a lot of work and a lot of negotiation and a lot of bipartisanship when it can be found. Labor however, cannot and will not be able to implement a framework that will assist those seeking asylum, if the Liberals remain in power.

I also do not judge Labor on this one policy. There common narrative from many on the left, is with a purposeful aim to ensure that Labor does not win Government because of this policy. These people do not understand, nor respect or system and they do not understand or respect many of the minors and Independents are not leftist parties. To be a single issue voter, is to be okay with the detrimental affects the single party that voter may choose, may have in every other single area of policy.

This is bigger than me and my personal feelings. My personal preferred model is far from what the Labor policy is. However, this does not mean that my preferred model, does not have risks, or may be detrimental to others or create other types of injustice. My view is a narrow view based on my feelings…on my empathy for others. It is not a expert informed view from all angles. This is what parties need to do. I do not have access to the range of experts whom inform this policy – nor is it my area of expertise/research or study. However the politicians do. That does not mean I accept what Labor’s policy is in its entirety. However, as a member of Labor I can use my voice to push for the changes I want within Labor on this issue. Those who complain from the outside, do not have this opportunity; but they could if they wanted to.

I seriously do not agree with punitive jobsearch measures and I won’t shut up inside Labor until punitive measures are no longer within the jobseeker framework. However, I am not going to encourage others to put Labor last or turf Labor out – or insist on a hodgepodge of Independents and minors who may in reality treat jobseekers much worse.

Kate AhearneJanuary 28, 2017 at 7:26 pm

Trish, it’s very interesting that you have chosen not to answer my query about the 3 things you would change tomorrow if you could. You say, ‘I’m not interested in any deflection. I would appreciate discussion in the context of my reply.’ I’m not interested in any deflection, either, Trish, and I find it very boring when you do it. And I can well understand that you ‘would appreciate discussion in the context of my reply’. Wouldn’t we all, Trish? But we’re not always getting it.

I could well understand that as an active member of the party, you mightn’t be allowed to answer questions such as mine. If that’s the case, I apologise for my persistence – you only have to say so.

Actually, I know full well that what other people hear turns into votes, and that’s one of the very big things that has worried me about your style of discourse.

You say, ‘… left women should be at the table, shouting at these men that they are wrong and they will not support it’. I thought Kaye’s response to that remark was measured and calm and so powerful in the context of this discussion. And, quite frankly, ‘shouting at these men that they are wrong’ is not something I would want to do. it wouldn’t be intelligent, reasonable or convincing, and it wouldn’t work.

‘ My point is there are those on the left, who are always critical of Labor above all else, always are critical of Labor, out of context, or always remain silent on Labor’s wider agenda and don’t do anything real to to action change.’ I don’t know who those people might be, Trish. But Kaye’s not one of them, and neither am I.

‘I think my point is well constructed, not pointed at anyone and I’ve taken the time to take any emotion out of it. in the hope that that people may actually take my comment seriously.’ Thanks for that, Yes, I think it has really helped you to get your message across. Maybe your message would be even more powerful if you were to go easy on the generalisations. You know what they say: ‘All generalisations are false – including this one’.

Trish, you don’t need to be quite so sensitive about Labor’s great achievements. Shout them from the rooftops, by all means, but it’s not an either/or situation, is it? Not black and white? Not all right and no wrong?

Kaye LeeJanuary 28, 2017 at 7:28 pm

“as a member of Labor I can use my voice to push for the changes I want within Labor on this issue. Those who complain from the outside, do not have this opportunity”

Perhaps not….presupposing that Labor doesn’t listen to anyone or anything said outside branch meetings and annual general conference. If they are that closed to public opinion then we will have to rely on the Labor Party members here to pass on concerns if they think them warranted and Labor can just let us have a say one day every three years.

And I agree about jobsearch. While you’re at it, can you please point them towards the mountain of research and community/business agreement that we should increase the Newstart payment. The benefits are obvious.

Trish CorryJanuary 28, 2017 at 7:38 pm

“Things like lived experience, phenomenology, constructed meaning and emotional contagion, symbolic interactionism inform my view.” Is there anyone for whom that doesn’t apply?

I can’t speak for everyone Kaye. I have no idea how many people in the world that those things listed above would inform their view. My point was I don’t respond as a mother or a teacher. I was just responding in kind about what informs me. I didn’t say it for a point of debate.

I’m sure others do not all think like me, as there are others who do not believe in multiple realities, multiple truth, constructed meaning, interpretivist thought, do not value lived experience, do not believe in such a thing as emotional contagion.

An individual’s ethics framework also does come into play for how it shapes a person’s world view and decision making. So with their decision making, they may take a Utilitarian approach, some people may have an underpinning of egoism which informs their world view. Clearly this is the case, otherwise, we would not have political parties based on individualism, authoritarianism or socialism etc., etc.,

So no, I don’t think that all those things above inform everyone’s world view. We are all unique.

If these things did apply to everyone – I’d love to ask Pauline Hanson “From the perspective of symbolic interactionism, what are your observations of the emotional affect individuals and minority groups within society experience as they respond to your nationalistic narrative? and how do you believe you have shaped this new world?”

hahah her face would be a crack up.

Trish CorryJanuary 28, 2017 at 7:39 pm

Trish, it’s very interesting that you have chosen not to answer my query about the 3 things you would change tomorrow if you could.

No it isn’t interesting it is boring. I’ve played this game on here for many years. I’m not playing today. Thanks anyway Kate.

Kaye LeeJanuary 28, 2017 at 7:48 pm

I thought all those phrases meant we are a product of our experiences which I would say is pretty universal.

Instead of asking Pauline ““From the perspective of symbolic interactionism, what are your observations of the emotional affect individuals and minority groups within society experience as they respond to your nationalistic narrative?” you could just ask “Do you think your words might hurt people?” Depends on if you are looking for an answer or not I suppose.

Kate AhearneJanuary 28, 2017 at 7:49 pm

Maybe not interesting to you, Trish, but very interesting to me. I have learned from it.

‘ multiple realities, multiple truth’ Yep.

‘“From the perspective of symbolic interactionism, what are your observations of the emotional affect individuals and minority groups within society experience as they respond to your nationalistic narrative? and how do you believe you have shaped this new world?”

If you spoke to Pauline Hanson like that and thought ‘her face would be a crack up’, what kind of a human being would that make you?

Trish CorryJanuary 28, 2017 at 8:00 pm

“Perhaps not….presupposing that Labor doesn’t listen to anyone or anything said outside branch meetings and annual general conference. If they are that closed to public opinion then we will have to rely on the Labor Party members here to pass on concerns if they think them warranted and Labor can just let us have a say one day every three years.”

*****

Of course Labor listens to others outside of the party and outside of conference. However, like all parties, Labor has it’s particular framework which informs policy. That is a democratic socialist approach with rank and file involvement and a very public conference open to scrutiny.

However, that does not mean that the decisions Labor arrives at, as a collective is not the perfect result for everyone. Not even everyone in the party. But that is what progressives do, they keep fighting. Unions are another example. Wouldn’t it be a wonderful world if there was a perfect party for absolutely everyone. To be realistic

For example, it took unions over ten years to redress pay disparity for those in the community sector. Is it perfect now? No. Is it better than it was? Hell yes. Should they have just given up and abandoned the union because they didn’t get the result they wanted the first time. No, they did not. They kept fighting.

Labor party members, in my experience, do talk to people and do bring things to the table. However, I think the point here is we are talking about those who are very engaged in politics and have the position of holding Labor to account for everything (I refer to Victoria’s previous article – Labor Obsessed) and have an agenda of pushing Labor down to replace them with whatever they believe is better.

The focus of this article is about these people and this discussion is turning into I feel from my own perspective asking me to explain every single imperfection within the party. I cannot do that I am sorry. I am a mere member in a regional town. I am not the collective of grassroots members across Australia, nor am I in a position of any decision making power in any executive.

However, the reality of what is outlined in this article is the constant sniping from some in the left, holding Labor to account for everything, expecting perfection and denigrating them on a single issue, is to the detriment of the left. This does not work for ‘the common good’ (to use Bill’s book title). People just end up hating Labor, putting them last and Labor members end up exhausted from fighting the conservatives as well as those who are also supposed to be fighting the conservatives, but are too busy fighting Labor. and then we all sit back for another three years and watch the conservatives ruin the country.

Trish CorryJanuary 28, 2017 at 8:02 pm

“Do you think your words might hurt people?” Kaye is a very kind of simplified version of what I posed as a question, but my question asks of her so much more.

trishcorryJanuary 28, 2017 at 8:10 pm

Oh Kate. What type of person would that make me? What type of person would take pleasure in seeing the confusion on Hansons face if posed with a complex question? What type of person would that make me? It would make me the same as most people in the country.

Kaye LeeJanuary 28, 2017 at 8:11 pm

I can understand the exhaustion Labor must feel defending the indefensible. Imagine how exhausting it is for refugee advocates who are fighting both major parties. To paraphrase slightly – Should they just give up and abandon the refugees because they didn’t get the result they wanted the first time. No, they should not. They keep fighting.

“have an agenda of pushing Labor down to replace them with whatever they believe is better”

Or the increasingly vain hope, it seems, that their party of choice might listen to their concerns and suggestions and improve.

“Labor members end up exhausted from fighting the conservatives as well as those who are also supposed to be fighting the conservatives, but are too busy fighting Labor. and then we all sit back for another three years and watch the conservatives ruin the country.”

That is a bit rich. Do you have any idea how hard I, and many others, fought for Gillard and how gutted I was when she was thrown away. The Labor Party did that to us and to themselves.

And what do you think your question to Hanson would achieve – introspection? Remorse? A change of heart? Or a win for you?

Kate AhearneJanuary 28, 2017 at 8:20 pm

Kaye, I’m still getting over the Pauline Hanson remark. God knows how close I came to saying something really, really angry. Nasty even. And I loved your response – ‘“Do you think your words might hurt people?”
Trish, ‘“Do you think your words might hurt people?” Kaye is a very kind of simplified version of what I posed as a question, but my question asks of her so much more.’ No, Victoria, it really doesn’t. It does, however, raise some serious questions about YOUR attitudes.

Kate AhearneJanuary 28, 2017 at 8:25 pm

Trish, ‘What type of person would that make me? It would make me the same as most people in the country.’ I hope with all my heart that you are dead wrong about that.

Kaye LeeJanuary 28, 2017 at 8:28 pm

Getting back to the article and broader discussion, for me it has boiled down to this.

We are all on the same side in wanting to improve the lives of all people whilst protecting the environment and encouraging sustainable practice.

Some are focused on the political mechanism, some on the scientific or technological mechanism, some on the financial mechanism, some on the social and legal mechanisms, some on the current problems and ultimate goals, some just on surviving today.

Everyone’s contribution plays a part.

Trish CorryJanuary 28, 2017 at 8:34 pm

Ok your the one telling the story. Personally I proudly own up to taking delight in anything that makes Hanson look like a dickhead. Sorry if that word is not allowed

Kate AhearneJanuary 28, 2017 at 8:36 pm

Kaye, Yes. I’ve been trying to copy and paste the graphic at the top of the article, but I can’t seem to get it to happen. So instead, I thought I’d copy and paste these words from Victoria’s article. I’m assuming they are her words, as they’re not attributed to anyone else. :

trishcorryJanuary 28, 2017 at 8:39 pm

Yes I agree Kaye. I thinks this article highlights that the constant negative narrative of some prevents us from ever achieving that in real terms, but casts that aside to be subjected to a conservative regime all in the name of “personal aims”

trishcorryJanuary 28, 2017 at 8:42 pm

Unfortunately in saying that, I don’t think anything will change, not even in this small space in society of AIMN where Victoria has highlighted this as a real issue.

jimhazJanuary 28, 2017 at 9:09 pm

[I seriously do not agree with punitive jobsearch measures and I won’t shut up inside Labor until punitive measures are no longer within the jobseeker framework]

There in lies the problem. For the sort of ALP leadership group many want, there would be no need to have to “not shut up”. Up to a point, resistance should be minimal.

It depends on what you seek. Naturally some “lighter at first, more excuses accepted” punitive measures would be required, but undoing what is occurring now shouldn’t require much debate.

Underneath that though we’d want a government that actually tackles the causes of high situational unemployment, and as a lesser point to progressively return the CES into being the primary provider.

Although tackling root causes is an immensely difficult task – nigh on impossible – only the ALP has sufficient power to do it. We’ll complain until they have a leadership group that might give real improvement a go.

Remove the appeal that leads people to destructive parties or we shall ever be of little faith.

Sanders position gave us hope. There seems to be no Sanders-like news in ALP talk. We had a bit with Dastyari – but look where that ended.

The Shorten faction is a problem. Very much establishment. I find it impossible to place any trust in him.

I have no idea of how union leaderships groups work, but I cannot shake the idea that lesser forms of HSU gravy training is occurring in many unions, but it is just the HSU where this got way out of control. The problem is how little they have to do, or can do, for members nowadays. They can’t seek higher wages, or improved conditions, they rarely strike, they’ve been legally restricted, they aren’t relied much even by members, they are not widely respected, their market has decreased by contract based employment, they are rarely in the news or seem to want to be regarding social issues. My view is this lack of rewarding activity is turning some to the trough, and to lose what motivated them to become an active union delegate – altruism. I see Shorten and his crowd like this.

Kaye LeeJanuary 28, 2017 at 9:19 pm

“Yes I agree Kaye. I thinks this article highlights that the constant negative narrative of some prevents us from ever achieving that in real terms, but casts that aside to be subjected to a conservative regime all in the name of “personal aims””

I am not sure what you are agreeing with but I didn’t say anything like that Trish.

trishcorryJanuary 28, 2017 at 9:31 pm

Of course you would not have said that Kaye. I don’t see that we share the same perspective on this.

My apologies, it should read I agree etc but However, I think …….

I should have started with “however”

corvus boreusJanuary 28, 2017 at 10:52 pm

For the record, although I believe that incarcerating children who have committed no crime is morally repugnant, I also recognize that , when Labor continue to defend such travesties being perpetrated upon asylum seekers, they are skirting around a complex issue that is both controversial and relatively peripheral to the majority of the electorate. Fair enough.

The federal anti-corruption body that is so obviously needed for the broadest good, since political misconduct effects the entirety of the population, an ethically clear and relatively simple solution , and one that is so clearly wanted by such a stark majority of the electorate, is another matter entirely.
In their protracted foot-dragging and fudging on this matter. I strongly suspect Labor are merely protecting their own misconducts.

Meanwhile, as the current poisonous levels of corporate influence over public policy continues to occur unchecked, earth raping stupidities (like the Maules creek and Carmichael mines, and all the various expanding CSG wells) will continue to be approved and subsidised with public money, and the destabilisation of the Earth’s climate will continue to accelerate towards seemingly inevitable catastrophe.

Ah well, I’m just another ’empty-headed dingbat screaming ICAC’ (ie; one of the 82.5%)

nurses1968January 28, 2017 at 11:01 pm

Kate Ahearne
January 28, 2017 at 3:40 pm
. “Which are the things you would change if you could?”
not really relevant as I am a single voice but at a pinch I’d say Centrelink payment increases with emphasis on Newstart,introduction of the MRRT {again} and guaranteed protection of Medicare,but I’m sure if you asked the same question of every member you would get different responses.
That is why concensus WITHIN the ALP will guide policy

silkwormJanuary 29, 2017 at 1:13 am

There are too many within the ALP who, if a conscience vote on same sex marriage came up, would vote against it, because they are Catholic.

Bill Shorten put Joe Bullock on the Senate ticket ahead of Louise Pratt because he was Catholic.

Trish CorryJanuary 29, 2017 at 6:08 am

Thanks Silkworm for providing another two good examples which support Victoria’s claims in her article. Not only do those who are constantly bagging Labor for the sake of bagging Labor, cherry pick examples, but they often get it wrong and spread untruths along with their cherry picked statements. Trump doesn’t have the ownership of Alternative Facts – those on the left who constantly bag Labor do!

I think it is the MP’s who vote in the house that matter for Marriage equality. So I’m unsure if you mean at grassroots or the MPs. However, on the official Marriage Equality website which tracks votes, in the current parliament we have 1 Labor against and 3 unknown and in the Senate 3 against, 2 unknown. I don’t think that equates with “too many” I think that equates with an over exaggeration of the facts. A convenient untruth.

Regardless, in the next election, Labor will have a binding vote, so even if these four people in the lower house were all against, the vote will be binding. That is the power of the collective way that Labor develops policy through conference.

Bill Shorten did not put Joe Bullock anywhere on any senate ticket. It was a deal with the SDA and Unity (I think) in exchange for support of some other candidate in another seat. I’m sure you can read about it somewhere. But Bill Shorten is not a member of the SDA in WA.. Considering Bill Shorten supports marriage equality, endorsing someone because he is Catholic (which he isn’t) and (presumably against marriage equality) simply does not even make sense. Also Bill converted to Anglican many years ago. Not that he rules by his religion. He hardly mentions religion. Shorten also made a speech to the Australian Christian Lobby in support of marriage equality.

In saying that, what your cherry picking did fail to omit,is that immediately after this occurred with Pratt and the SDA trade off – Shorten and Albo immediately together called for pre-selection reforms for the Senate. I haven’t tracked how that has gone because it is not an area of interest for me – but I’m sure I can find out.

Just a final note on Shorten if you want to define him by his religion, his book “The Common Good” he speaks to this briefly – however, it (his Jesuit values) is all framed in the way of ‘doing good for others’ ‘putting others first’ ‘treating everyone as equal’ etc., etc., I don’t think religion has had some crazy fundamentalist effect on his thinking. However, you appear to want to demonstrate that it does. The interesting question is, why?

Again, thank you for providing another two good examples.

Trish CorryJanuary 29, 2017 at 6:31 am

“There in lies the problem. For the sort of ALP leadership group many want, there would be no need to have to “not shut up”. Up to a point, resistance should be minimal.”

**********

Jimhaz, punitive measures have been adopted as a motivator from both sides for a long time now. Increasingly worse with every Liberal Government. There has only been two terms of Labor Rudd/Gillard since the financially punitive measures were introduced. and they were too busy fighting about other stuff, to my dismay.

However, although Labor supports income management and they currently support the inclusion of financial penalties, just like marriage equality there is scope to improve on this and get this achieved. Please remember that one individual does not define the Labor party. It is a collective. Leadership does not just make the decisions. That would be an authoritarian party view – such as the Liberals. However, I do strongly agree that the Labor leadership could indeed push reforms for the jobsearch framework.

As Dr. John Falzon says – jobsearch is looked at from the wrong mindset. Shorten, in everything he has done so far, is open to various mindsets and I believe many in Labor would be too (personal opinion).

It has been pleasing to me that Shorten and Labor have been attacking the liberals with the narrative of mutual obligation and that the Liberals are not siding with their side of mutual obligation. This shows that Shorten supports financial penalties in a world where work is in abundance. I think this narrative paves the way for a different view in times of high unemployment.

However, my personal stance is I do not agree with financial penalties under any circumstance whatsoever. This is because I have personally spent years studying the intricacies of emotions of and the well being of jobseekers and disadvantaged jobseekers. It is up to voices like mine and voices like John Falzon’s who should push this and show that it is not black and white.

The majority of people in Australia have an much harsher view of jobseekers than what I do. I am not surprised that financial penalties are accepted by the majority within both major parties. When John Falzon said this (about welfare being a personal choice) in his interview on lateline- I literally broke down and cried. My voice of no penalties for jobseekers is not a voice that is shared by many and is not heard voiced a lot. There is currently no strong movement to remove financial penalties or other punitive measures. There needs to be.

This is where the Greens and other parties on the left who take a stance against punitive measures could reach across the table and really work with Labor and push reforms. I have a cynical view on this though, so I won’t air it.

People may be shocked to learn that Senator Rachel Siewert is my champion in this area – the person’s voice I most admire on this topic. My champion in the Australia – John Falzon. My aim for 2017 is to do as much as I can to bring attention to this as an issue.

Here is Falzon’s interview: http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2016/s4541783.htm

RoswellJanuary 29, 2017 at 6:52 am

Although we all might argue amongst ourselves, I think that all Labor supporters deserve lots of credit.

Compare them to Coalition supporters.

In the seven or so years that I’ve been reading blogs – many of them – Coalition supporters are nothing but a cheer squad.

Have you ever seen them do anything but cheer from the sidelines at whatever the Coalition propose or implement? They whistle in support of everything. Every. Single. Thing.

They go wild with excitement over Fraudband. They go wild with excitement over cutting funding to Indigenous services. Over marginalising minority groups. Over the harsh treatment of refugees. Over making the unemployed wait longer for the dole. Over banning the burqa. They are all against same-sex marriage. They all think climate change is crap. They all blame Labor. None can see why people need to flee a war-torn country. None object over the possible sale of Medicare. They all want the ABC muted.

The only thing some of them have complained about was the knifing of Tony Abbott.

Labor supporters, you no doubt have noticed, are the complete opposite. We are able to stand up and make our voices be heard if we oppose something our party stands for. There is nothing wrong with that.

Others do it differently. They are silent but they keep their faith. They agitate for change from within. There is nothing wrong with that either.

We’ve seen both types on this thread, and each think the other is doing it wrong. Personally, I think neither are wrong. It’s just the way we ‘behave’ as Labor supporters. We all have the faith, and that’s what we mustn’t lose sight of.

Labor will win the next election. Labor will win if the supporters do it Victoria’s way, or if they do it with the supporters voicing what they oppose.

And when Labor win, if they don’t govern with the Labor values we expect them to, then no doubt we will all make our voices heard. Unlike Coalition supporters, we don’t duct tape our mouths.

corvus boreusJanuary 29, 2017 at 6:58 am

Same sex marriage; the distraction with traction.
There is seemingly strengthening public support for such, but it seems the plebiscite concept is also broadly favoured, even if it will be a costly exercise, with the results not necessarily binding to the parliamentarians who will ultimately have the final vote on the subject anyway (one day, maybe).

http://www.afr.com/news/politics/election-2016-majority-of-voters-would-say-yes-in-gay-marriage-plebiscite-20160701-gpwg3z

I’d put myself in the 70% who say ‘consenting adults? no objection’, but in the minority who see a plebiscite as a WOFTAM.
Not being same sex inclined, nor disposed to wedlock, it isn’t a personal priority for myself, nor does it seem to be something with critical repercussions, central to competent and decent governance of the broad public for the greatest good.
I think it does, however, serve a certain pragmatic purpose as a symbol to inspire ideological division, and as a convenient political chew-toy to divert attention from other (to my mind, weightier) matters.

I don’t fault Labor for allowing it’s elected representatives a conscience vote on SSM (if/when it happens).

Trish CorryJanuary 29, 2017 at 7:15 am

January 28, 2017 at 8:36 pm Kate Ahern
Kaye, I’m still getting over the Pauline Hanson remark. God knows how close I came to saying something really, really angry. Nasty even.

*********************

Are you delirious or just an inherently nasty person Kate Ahern? Are you one of these commenters who think they should have ownership over who ‘belongs or does not belong’ on AIMN, because you are certainly sounding like you do, in a number of instances now and not just towards me. Heads up – you don’t have the authority over who can comment on here or what they can say – Michael and the moderators do. That is it.

What you are doing here, indirectly addressing me but talking to Kaye, is like one of those nasty women at the checkout who talks really loudly to her friends about the terrible mothering skills of the lady at the next checkout. The aim of this is to belittle the other woman at the checkout. Why include such type of language in an online debate, if your aim is not to belittle others? I say that it is. Maybe, if you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say it.

If needing to suppress nastiness and anger towards another person online because they admitted they would take delight in Hanson being confused with a complex question, steeped in Academia speak, posed to her about the stigma she denies she inflicts upon others (which by the way is not as simplified as what Kaye has made it out to be, thanks!) somehow incites such anger and nastiness towards that person, that you need to suppress it – speaks to more about you than it does about me.

The entire country has been laughing at Hanson’s “please explain” when asked about Xenophobia for twenty years. Chuck us all in the bin!

Kaye LeeJanuary 29, 2017 at 8:57 am

Added to Louise Pratt and Lisa Singh, I thought Gillard’s treatment of Trish Crossin was also unfair, disendorsing a sitting Senator for someone who wasn’t even a member of the party at the time. It smacked of tokenism and didn’t turn out well in the long run. Kimberley Kitching’s appointment would indicate things haven’t improved too much.

Factions are a real problem for me. People are banding together not so much in pursuit of policy as of power.

Kate AhearneJanuary 29, 2017 at 9:18 am

nurses, Thanks for your response to my query. Your voice is not insignificant because it is a single voice. If we don’t use our voices, nobody is going to hear us. That being said, I think a lot would agree with you about the three areas you have mentioned as needing attention, although some might argue that the MRRT horse has bolted. (Not sure if I would agree with them.) But whether that’s true or not, there is a great big black hole in policy about mining, including fracking and corporate responsibility for the environment. I’d love to see Labor get their teeth right into that, particularly as the LNP will not. As for Newstart, yes. And it’s interesting that the three areas you have mentioned are areas that both sides of politics could work on for all our sakes.

Kaye LeeJanuary 29, 2017 at 9:31 am

I agree the kowtowing to the mining industry must stop, which may have been one of the reasons Lisa Singh was treated so shabbily.

“Lisa Singh, Tasmanian senator and shadow parliamentary secretary for the environment, has signed the “pollution free politics pledge”, forcing Opposition Leader Bill Shorten to restate that Labor was not considering ending the diesel fuel rebate available to miners and farmers.

Asked on Wednesday about mining subsidies, Mr Shorten, who was in Brisbane to pledge $100 million for community “solar power hubs”, was emphatic: “We will keep the diesel fuel rebate for mining companies.”

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2016/another-labor-mp-breaks-ranks-with-bill-shorten-on-fossil-fuel-subsidies-and-mining-donations-20160601-gp8tfe.html

If you have a policy of 50% renewables by 2030, this makes no sense, particularly when there is a growing international movement to scrap the subsidies and in light of the revelations of aggressive tax avoidance by mining companies.

The good, the bad and the ugly: Fossil fuel subsidies at the Paris climate talks

Kate AhearneJanuary 29, 2017 at 10:04 am

Trish, I’ll just make a couple of points about this. ‘I’d love to ask Pauline Hanson “From the perspective of symbolic interactionism, what are your observations of the emotional affect individuals and minority groups within society experience as they respond to your nationalistic narrative? and how do you believe you have shaped this new world?”

hahah her face would be a crack up.’

I found this remark particularly nasty. Kaye pointed out to you earlier that if you genuinely wanted an answer, you could have asked your question in plain English. It’s not a complex question, it’s a show-off, put-down question that you would put to a person who has not had all the advantages of a higher education that you have had. She almost certainly wouldn’t understand your question (and quite frankly, with all the advantages of my own higher education, I didn’t understand it too well either. Had to consult Professor Google about ‘symbolic interactionism’). So what would be your point in putting your question to Pauline Hanson? You asked me, ‘Why include such type of language in an online debate, if your aim is not to belittle others?’ I’ll send that right back at you,Trish. Why use ‘such type of language’ in your question to Pauline Hanson, if your aim is not to belittle her? What sort of person would take cruel delight in baffling someone who has not had the opportunities that you have had, because she does not speak the same academic language? What would make you any different to Pauline Hanson if you did that? Pauline doesn’t need to be belittled, she’s perfectly capable of belittling herself any time she opens her mouth. You wouldn’t be showing her up as a ‘dickhead’ because you’d be a ‘dickhead’ yourself, a ‘dickhead’ who takes delight in wounding and belittling others.

You say I remind you of that nasty loud-mouthed woman at the checkout. The first image that came to my mind when I read your Pauline Hanson remarks was of a playground bully.

And Trish, when I’m speaking to you, I address you as Trish. When I’m speaking to Kaye, I address her as Kaye.

Trish CorryJanuary 29, 2017 at 10:43 am

Kate – I stand by my comments. I’ll report anything I see from you, using passive aggressive tactics, trying to antagonise people every time I see it. That sort of behaviour does not need to occur on here. If you don’t do it. I won’t need to report it.

You are misconstruing the entire thing altogether. It was a conversation between me and Kaye and she said she spoke as a mother and a teacher. I listed a range of things that inform my view (see below).

Then Kaye said: “Things like lived experience, phenomenology, constructed meaning and emotional contagion, symbolic interactionism inform my view.” Is there anyone for whom that doesn’t apply?

I disagreed. As there are many types of thinkers in the world and also the framework of ethics also informs people. I then made up a very long complex sentence using sociology/org behaviour and org psych academic speak to prove a point (that not everyone thinks in the terms I listed), in what I would describe as a nerd joke. (Like other nerds get it!) Which was:

“I’d love to ask Pauline Hanson “From the perspective of symbolic interactionism, what are your observations of the emotional affect individuals and minority groups within society experience as they respond to your nationalistic narrative? and how do you believe you have shaped this new world?”

I scoffed at the thought of Hanson’s face if asked that. Because although she portrays herself as an authority on everything – she is anything but. I still stand by that I would take pleasure in absolutely anything that made that women look stupid or anything that put her in a bad light, because she is a danger to this country. We do not need to display decorum when discussing her, surely?

Then in the spirit of AIMN commentary, this has now turned into some type of analysis of the value of that question. Whether we could ask it more simply etc., etc. How ridiculous. Really. How silly. when it was used to demonstrate a point in a conversation between two people about whether a range of sociology/org behaviour theories underpin the thoughts of everyone.

Then you openly commented to someone else (about the person (me) who made the statement) how you had to hold back your anger because of this. Over-dramatic, passive aggressive and completely not necessary.

if I’m a playground bully on this, I suggest you better start calling over 90% of the house holds in Australia to rouse on them, because “Please Explain” is not a famous phrase for no reason. Neither is “I don’t like it” You might want to start with Pauline Pantsdown. Her first record about Hanson (now banned) was “I’m a backdoor man”

To insist we must display all proper measures of decorum when it comes to Hanson is a joke right?

who are you? The cyber police? or Dorrie Evans? or James Ashby?

Kate AhearneJanuary 29, 2017 at 10:44 am

Trish, I’ve just worked out why you’ve been thinking I’m talking to you when I’m addressing Kaye. It’s because on the previous page I’ve clicked Reply instead of Comments. Reply takes you to the bottom of the Comments section, whereas Comments takes you to the top. I like to go to the bottom, especially when there have been lots of comments, as there are on this thread at the moment – 144. Perhaps you’d better report me for that, too.

Trish CorryJanuary 29, 2017 at 10:49 am

No Kate. That is not it at all and you know it isn’t. I’m moving to another thread. I’m done engaging on this one.

RoswellJanuary 29, 2017 at 11:01 am

Like I said, Labor will win the next election. But they need us all to help them get there.

I’m as guilty as anybody for attacking people – an action I regret – but from this moment on I fight for what is right. What the conservatives want to do is destroy those rights.

Everyone here is on the same team. Let’s play as a team.

Kate AhearneJanuary 29, 2017 at 11:14 am

Roswell, Yes, let’s.

RoswellJanuary 29, 2017 at 11:17 am

Kate, we’re all guilty.

Kaye LeeJanuary 29, 2017 at 11:19 am

Being on the team means looking at what you did wrong and trying to fix it. Too often, criticism of Labor is deflected by “but the other guy is worse”. That is unquestionably true but Labor should be able to listen to concerns and either address them or explain why they have taken their chosen path. It is disappointing that anyone who questions their actions is branded almost as a traitor.

Kate AhearneJanuary 29, 2017 at 11:22 am

Roswell, Kaye, Thanks to both of you for the sanity.

Deanna JonesJanuary 29, 2017 at 11:38 am

Yay for solidarity. The overlords want us to fight amongst ourselves, it suits them just right.

I watched Rogue One the other night and there is in it a former Imperial droid, K2, who has been re-programmed and now fights on the side of the Rebellion. Thinking about Ms Hansen, if she were to become educated and informed she’d make a cracker of a feminist. Come over from the dark side, Pauline!

silkwormJanuary 29, 2017 at 11:50 am

“I’m moving to another thread. I’m done engaging on this one.”

Please don’t.

Kate AhearneJanuary 29, 2017 at 11:57 am

There is a difference between infighting and the sort of criticism that is offered in a constructive spirit. I think it is vital that we make this distinction.

RhondaJanuary 29, 2017 at 2:47 pm

I need a couple of Panadol now rxx

nurses1968January 29, 2017 at 4:48 pm

Roswell
” Labor will win the next election”
Not certain about that,
I don’t get the internal polling that I used to but stuff keeps coming for the boss and I sneak a peep.
Labor are ahead in polls but not in seats necessary for them to win Government.
The polls show increases in typically Labor seats but those on the 1-2% margin for the Liberals and seats like Duttons remain just out of reach and in some cases a slight increase for the Libs

Return to home page

Login here Register here

JaquixJanuary 26, 2017 at 2:45 pm

Good start to the conversation Victoria. I like the way Bernie Sanders says it all again but in a refreshing way that cuts thru the nonsense. What a shame he didnt beat Hillary for nomination. Ive also long thought the progressives should unite but also have a new name. Start afresh without the baggage. Even disenchanted old Lib voters might be able to vote for the new party,vwithout the old tag, whereas they couldnt bring themselves to vote for the “dreadful Labor party” their parents talked about. There is a lot of power in the right name! My own pretty ordinary suggestion is the Progressive Peoples Party, the PPP. The Libs and Nats are only in power because they united (sort of) otherwise they would be in the wilderness. (Where they belong).
stephengb2014January 26, 2017 at 2:47 pm

I could never understand the use of the word ‘greens’ to identify a left of politics political party.

It seems to me to be a name you would pick when you didn’t realy want to be taken seriously, but do not get me wrong I admire Bob Brown and Scot whats his name, its just that the name ‘GREENS’ is reminiscent of the ‘tree huggers of the save the forest protest, just not a serious political party.

Sorry but there you are!
Kaye LeeJanuary 26, 2017 at 3:06 pm

Both parties’ names reflect their origins of which they should be proud.

Once again, I am troubled about a call to unite whilst pigeon-holing us with such dismissive labels – “the inner-city-lefties, the working-class-suburbanites, the rusted-on-Labor voters, the environmentalist-hipster-Greens and the even-more-hipster-too-cool-to-join-someone-else’s-movement progressives”
Frederick FrothJanuary 26, 2017 at 3:26 pm

Speaking of green politics, saving the forests, the eco-sphere, and thus by extension humankind too, because we are totally embedded/entangled and dependent upon the biosphere, please check out these three references;
http://www.sacredcamelgardens.com/literature/reality-humanity.php
http://www.sacredforests.earth
http://www.openfield.earth
win jeavonsJanuary 26, 2017 at 3:30 pm

The Mutual Respect Party ? On this Australia day I feel we should be looking forward, not back, grow past being Just Aussie, even just human and become , as David Suzuki said, biocentric. We are all on this planet together, what one does all are affected by, so it is time to leave the individual behind, and embrace inter-dependence .All humans are entitled to the same rights as a Trump or a Turnbull. Not just bare survival, and all life is ultimately connected.
corvus boreusJanuary 26, 2017 at 3:35 pm

I think the notion that to be an environmentalist automatically means you are some kind of urban trendy is plain laughable.
As if many of the people who value the natural world and prioritize it’s preservation don’t live or work out in the bush.

Trying to clumsily cram people into small boxes labelled with clichés is not a particularly good start towards unifying disparity.
Trish CorryJanuary 26, 2017 at 3:56 pm

An excellent piece of writing as always Victoria.
Kate AhearneJanuary 26, 2017 at 4:49 pm

Victoria, thanks for this .I think most of your readers will like your paragraph beginning, ‘Your rights are my rights…’ Wonderful stuff, and if that narrative did indeed fit all of the groups you mention, all would be well – full steam ahead. But it doesn’t. Just one great big example – the Labor Party’s policy on refugees.
JexpatJanuary 26, 2017 at 5:02 pm

Ms. Rollinson (much like her ideological counterparts in the Clinton wing of the US Democratic party) doesn’t seem to grasp that most folks don’t see Labor Right and its sycophants as progressive. And rightly so, based on the record. The best progressives can hope for from thier mob is a few bones, crumbs and half measures tossed out every once in a while, as their faceless men permit.

Thus being the case, they’ve created a void. And politics, like nature abhors a vacuum. Create one, and someone or some group will come along and fill it.

Had they not endeavored so tirelessly to create this void… had they held true to tradational Labor values, the party that they whinge about incessantly and irrationally wouldn’t have gathered up a constituency in the first place. But they did not- and will not, and hence, their primary vote has been trending downward. It’s fallen to, what was it at the last election: less than 34% ?
Victoria RollisonJanuary 26, 2017 at 5:15 pm

You all know how much I love it when I plead with progressives to unite and I get the same old tired arguments about why you can’t possibly support the only progressive major party with any chance of forming government. Thanks for all your help (not!). To those who, when they look at Labor, only see asylum seeker policy, your privileged world where only one policy matters to you is a very nice place to yell at people from, but you’re once again proving you don’t have the pragmatism to see how unproductive this is to those who desperately need Labor’s health, education, economic and industrial relations policies and don’t have the luxury of identity politics to make themselves feel warm inside. You’re seriously not understanding my request for progressives to unite despite our individual differences. Shame.
Möbius EckoJanuary 26, 2017 at 5:48 pm

“faceless men”

Straight from the Murdoch media attacks on Labor, all the while they and the Liberals were putting names to these supposed faceless men, so how could they be faceless.

So just who are these faceless men of the Labor party, the Silence?
Kate AhearneJanuary 26, 2017 at 5:59 pm

Victoria, You say, ‘To those who, when they look at Labor, only see asylum seeker policy, your privileged world where only one policy matters to you is a very nice place to yell at people from…’ I’m assuming that this remark is addressed to me, as I seem to be the only commenter so far who has mentioned Labor’s Policy on refugees. Your remark has actually made me quite cross. I did not say anything that might suggest that I ‘only see asylum seeker policy’. I mentioned it as ‘Just one great big example’. And you don’t have any idea of my world. Yes, it IS privileged compared to the lives of the refugees, but please don’t make assumptions like this about people who are responding (and disagreeing) with something you have written. I have not yelled at you, Victoria – I do not yell at people. But sometimes I really would like to.
corvus boreusJanuary 26, 2017 at 6:04 pm

Victoria Rollinson,
There was a single reference to refugee policy by a single poster.
Throwing around inaccurate generalizations (particularly derogatory ones) is not particularly conducive towards broader coalescence into greater unity., but instead constitutes a particularly malignant form of identity politics.
helvityniJanuary 26, 2017 at 6:19 pm

Be those Labor men/women faceless or in your face, they are still miles ahead with their progressive policies. I don’t belong to any party but I support both Labor and the Greens.

Gillard did well working together with the Greens and with progressive Independents. As for the Libs who wants to support a party, which wants to take you back to the Fifties.

On another political blog the Liberal commenters used the word ‘progressive’ as a putdown. I’d be rich if I got a dollar for each time they called me progressive… 🙂
helvityniJanuary 26, 2017 at 6:24 pm

…another insult was “an asylum seeker lover”, WOW!
Kate AhearneJanuary 26, 2017 at 6:35 pm

Corvus, Yes. you have put it very nicely. Why on earth would a writer make such divisive remarks if she’s looking for unity?

Victoria, And as Kaye has already pointed out, why would you use this kind of language, as you do in the body of your article, to describe groups of people if you hope to unite to a common cause? – ‘the inner-city-lefties, the working-class-suburbanites, the rusted-on-Labor voters, the environmentalist-hipster-Greens and the even-more-hipster-too-cool-to-join-someone-else’s-movement progressives.’
Trish CorryJanuary 26, 2017 at 7:17 pm

Oh Jesus give me strength! Talk about missing the entire point just to have a go at the author. Unless you are in denial that those groups exist Kate Ahern, Victoria has a very strong point. It isn’t divisive. It is pointing out the ugly truth. An ugly truth that many need to have a good hard look in the mirror about.

What I am reading here in the comments is the same cry that people who support Hanson use. “Just because I support her – doesn’t mean I’m a racist!” They all cry. The hard pill to swallow is that by condoning and supporting her policies they are indeed racist.

Are all Trump supporters inherently misogynistic pigs? Hell no. Did they just vote in a misogynistic pig who will write into legislation and make misogynistic piggy things law? Hell yes! Did they just condone his misogynistic piggery by voting for him? Hell yes!

Did those on the left who decided to lift Trump up higher by kicking Clinton down, because it is ok to be extremely imperfect as a man, but not even slightly imperfect as a woman? Hell Yes they did!

The hard pill to swallow for some of the ‘leftists’ listed here, are that they are more damaging to the progress of the left by constantly attacking the only left party who can get rid of the bastard Liberals. Constantly pushing Labor down, only lifts the Liberals up.

It is more important to some to deny Labor power and openly and aggressively prevent it because they do not agree with Labor’s Asylum seeker policy and in doing so, deny so many disadvantaged people a chance at a better quality of life. If we are talking about having Labor in or the Liberals in on Health – we are actually just talking about giving people a chance at life – to actually remain living. Think on that very significant point, please. Labor give people a better chance of actually staying alive, but Labor’s asylum seeker policy is more important to withhold a vote on, than voting for people staying alive.

I would prefer that the broad left actually got behind Labor and stop their incessant whinging and moaning about their one cherry picked policy, whatever that may be out of a gamut of 100 so far that will provide great benefit to Australia.

Does Labor always have it right? No, they don’t. Put they are the only major party who the country can be pushed further to the left to make it so. It is time some people realised that. It is a major source of frustration for me.

Why would a writer make such divisive remarks? Because they make a strong and valid point. Victoria always has a very strong and valid point. Every single article, without fail. That is why she is recognised as one of, if not the best political blogger in the entire country. I have never ever read even one comment on any article of hers that successfully refutes her claims.
JexpatJanuary 26, 2017 at 7:46 pm

Victoria Rollison wrote: ” I plead with progressives to unite.”

No, you don’t.

That much is obvious.

And as preditable as Trish’s posts.

Wherein anyone who dares to point out _____(fill in the blank) will be denounced as ‘bullies.”
Kaye LeeJanuary 26, 2017 at 7:57 pm

“You’re seriously not understanding my request for progressives to unite despite our individual differences. Shame.”

The Labor Party should be ashamed at how they let down their supporters by wasting six years whiteanting each other. They had vastly superior policies that we were all fighting for and they shot themselves in the foot and delivered government to the Coalition purely because of their own personal ambition.

Gillard did the hard yards on policy and then you threw her under a bus.
Kate AhearneJanuary 26, 2017 at 8:04 pm

Trish You begin your remarks by saying, ‘Talk about missing the entire point just to have a go at the author.’ You are not in a position to have any idea what motivated me to to make the points I did, (unless, of course, I actually made them for the reasons that I said I did!) I certainly did not make those remarks ‘just to have a go at the author’, and there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that I did. What you have said amounts to a slur on my character, and it is not acceptable.

You finish by saying, ‘I have never ever read even one comment on any article of hers that successfully refutes her claims.’ I think you did read some of those comments, this very day, although you certainly don’t appear to have recognised them as such, Just my opinion, of course.

Most of the stuff that you have written in between the opening and closing statements is a bit of a mystery to me. I’m not sure if I can figure out what you’re trying to convey But just so that we’re perfectly clear, I am no fan of either Hanson or Trump. However, when I find the Left behaving in ways that I cannot support, I hope I will have the commitment and the courage to say so. (And asylum seeker policy is only one area that needs to be scrutinised.)
Matters NotJanuary 26, 2017 at 8:17 pm

That is why she is recognised as one of, if not the best political blogger in the entire country

The there’s nothing more to be said. Is there?
nurses1968January 26, 2017 at 8:22 pm

Kate AhearneJanuary 26, 2017 at 4:49 pm

“Victoria, thanks for this”

then……

what/who caused the about face?
trishcorryJanuary 26, 2017 at 8:40 pm

Roswell what I “did” to Kayelee was express an opinion that an information dump with no argument is a severe problem in today’s alternative facts climate. I expressed an opinion like everyone else does on here, that I was disappointed not to see more.

Some type of analysis a compare and contrast perhaps. I apologised twice for being critical. I stated it was more an author to author opinion. You know like what happens in the real world amongst authors. No one has to agree with it.

But my opinion still stands that we need more articles such as this with solid arguments, rather than listing something like fascism without any critique. I was not rude, I was not abusive, I did not comment on the Author personally. I made an opinion from my subjective viewpoint as a writer about the structure of Kaye’s article. I really do not feel that was “doing anything” to Kaye. I find that fascinating considering the pointed attacks towards Victoria here.
Robert G. ShawJanuary 26, 2017 at 9:12 pm

Victoria,
an interesting read.
Yes, we do need a new narrative. And have for some time. I’m genuinely surprised that you would doubt either the veracity or the urgency of that.
The old one died an unmourned miserable death, the death of the traitor, when it decided to co opt Liberal-lite policy.
It wasn’t really at fault. What could the poor thing do?
The working class wasn’t really “working class” anymore.
A MacMansion, 3 new cars, one a new Holden sports ute, in metallic blue, hardly speaks to struggle street now does it? Alas, it jettisoned the poor as readily as Clinton just did in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Ohio.

No, we need a new narrative. The Labor party needs to reflect on its ideological commitments and decide whether it intends to uphold them. Decide. One way or the other. This political tap dance is unbecoming.

I read your proposed narrative with a smile.
It read like something from Fourier or Owen.
If you have a road map as to how to get there, I’ll drive.
Till then however, we’re just waiting by the side of the road…..
Kate AhearneJanuary 26, 2017 at 9:13 pm

Nurses, No about face. I pointed out the big thing that I really liked about the piece, and I pointed out another big thing that I was concerned about. I didn’t agree with or like everything in the piece, nor did I dislike or disagree with everything in the article.

Trish, Nobody has attacked Victoria. Disagreeing is not attacking. There have been attacks, though, as has already been pointed out.
RoswellJanuary 26, 2017 at 9:20 pm

Trish, it’s interesting that you see them as attacks. I see them as people sharing an opinion.

I haven’t seen anything like an attack. I’ve seen people disagree with Victoria, and they are entitled to do that.

I’d be very surprised if any writer here expects every reader to agree with everything they say.

What’s my opinion? I’m Labor to the core and always will be. I don’t support all of their positions but I will still vote for them. I loathe their stance on asylum seekers, but like Victoria says, Labor is still a better option. Not only do I loathe their policy on asylum seekers but I will stand up and say so. People have been doing that, and you think it’s an attack.

Do you consider my comment to be an attack?
trishcorryJanuary 26, 2017 at 9:29 pm

Well I’m glad that’s settled that people can disagree with the author. A few moments ago that meant “doing something to them.” Goodnight Roswell.
Kate AhearneJanuary 26, 2017 at 9:42 pm

Trish, You weren’t simply disagreeing with Kaye. You were trying to tell her how to write, you tried to insist that she should have done it the way you would have done it.

Anyway, the two comments threads have become tangled together, so in case there are readers who haven’t seen Kaye’s piece, it’s here: https://theaimn.com/live-fascist-regime/
Kaye LeeJanuary 26, 2017 at 9:47 pm

I did not feel attacked and I don’t think Victoria has been attacked either.
Kate AhearneJanuary 26, 2017 at 9:49 pm

Kaye, I’m glad you didn’t feel attacked. And I certainly can’t see that Victoria has been attacked. I certainly felt attacked myself, though.
Kaye LeeJanuary 26, 2017 at 10:07 pm

I’m just trying to settle things a bit Kate so we can get back to discussing why the progressive vote is divided and what we may be able to do about it.
Kate AhearneJanuary 26, 2017 at 10:09 pm

Matters Not, I owe you an apology. I didn’t see your most recent remarks on yesterday’s article on the Women’s March until just now. (Been having big problems with my connection with AIMN, although all seems to be sorted now.) You were right. I was the one who conflated remarks from two different threads, not you. i used the same turn of phrase in both threads, apparently. Anyway, the thread on the Women’s March article has closed, so I hope this apology will catch up with you.
Kate AhearneJanuary 26, 2017 at 10:19 pm

Kaye, I can see that, and I do appreciate it. But I did need to be very clear with Trish – I was very cross. Sadly, it is apparent that I did not succeed. So, having seen at least a couple of the reasons the left is divided, let’s get on with it.
jimhazJanuary 26, 2017 at 10:20 pm

[Gillard did the hard yards on policy and then you threw her under a bus]

and we lost other ministers with good EQs as a result, who would have made the ALP a better party now by giving less power to the right, even if she had been defeated by the bulldog with rabies.
Kaye LeeJanuary 26, 2017 at 10:36 pm

I think one of the problems is that any criticism of Labor is viewed almost as treason. I have made the comparison before that, whilst I love my children dearly, that does not make them immune from criticism or an expectation for them to do better.

jimhaz, I agree – we lost a lot of good ministers in that purge. I think Richard Marles has done an atrocious job. Instead of firmly pointing out that the offshore detention centres were opened as a temporary measure to deal with a warning about an imminent influx of refugees, he just parrots “Labor supports offshore detention” in his blancmange way as he hosts his folksy show with Pyne on pay tv.
@RosemaryJ36January 26, 2017 at 10:38 pm

Respect for others, working to help those who need help and treating others as you would wish to be be treated are, to me, the necessary foundations for an ethics driven society. I was brought up in a Presbyterian household where your conscience was your guide. Now an agnostic I still hold on to the ethics but think that the superstitions and trappings of all organised religions seem to place stumbling blocks for harmonious living. Compassion, empathy and acceptance of difference should guide all decision and policy making. The economy should be our servant not our ruler and you can be rich without needing great wealth. And if I were an advisor to the PM I would say “Bring the refugees here and negotiate with Indonesia to establish facilities for assessing refugee claims while we help finance their support in the interim.” Surely it would cost less than we are currently throwing away on destroying their lives in Nauru and Manus?
JexpatJanuary 26, 2017 at 10:38 pm

Matters Not wrote: “Then there’s nothing more to be said. Is there?”

Well, there is the Queen Victoria bit…. with the mortar board on the head. And the juvenile photo memes about :gasp: socialists!

Probably best to leave the narrative with: enough said there….
ozibodyJanuary 26, 2017 at 10:53 pm

Thank you Victoria, I’ve enjoyed reading your article. In particular, the following really caught my eye … and my attention :-

” …. that ‘200 of the most exciting young people’ who were invited to attend the ‘Junket’ conference are not just fed up with Labor, but are also fed up with their newer toy, The Greens, and instead showed ‘strong support for some kind of new organisation, potentially even a political party…… ”

So many folk appear obsessed about ” NEW ” , which, to me, indicates a wish for the ‘ complete package, all done and dusted ‘ … no involvement required, or desired ! …. Simply ” Drive Away no More to Pay ” ! …. Perhaps we deserve the Consumer Society … throw away ethic, we’ve allowed ourselves to be sucked into ? !

For those of us who wish for ‘ change ‘ ( to a Social Democracy, perhaps ) should seriously consider the Labor Party , and be prepared ,through concerted effort,to , ‘ shatter it to bits and then remould it nearer to our Heart’s Desire ‘… apologies to Omar Khayyam .. 🙂 ..

Most folk should know there’s nothing really NEW in the whole wide world , and History is of little interest to most !
silkwormJanuary 27, 2017 at 1:26 am

Labor and Greens unite in their criticism of everything that the Libs do.
Robert G. ShawJanuary 27, 2017 at 7:14 am

Trish,
‘Did those on the left who decided to lift Trump up higher by kicking Clinton down, because it is ok to be extremely imperfect as a man, but not even slightly imperfect as a woman? Hell Yes they did!”

I take your point (in this and in the Australian political context).
However, one’s own side, one’s own political conscience, should never be immune from interrogation or critique. I understand, as I’m sure do a few others here, that installing the Left in power will yield a greater good for a greater number. That’s the hope, that’s always been the end game of our ideology. Yet when we see that hope diminished or compromised by dilution of policy, by abrogation of morality, by political fluckery as vile and demeaning as anything our foes have managed, then people will tend to loosen their embrace of the Labor cause.
I think that’s the prevailing rationale for the disquiet you, or Victoria, are encountering.

My view is oddly enough, the world is an amazing place, is it not?, identical to that of Roswell’s. Left from birth to death; the DNA of liberty and equality and communitarianism passed on from fathers and mothers to sons and daughters.
And so the paradox: every Labor government is worth the compromise of principles – each small sacrifice of a part never being greater than the sum.
That’s the compromise Trish, but not the interrogation.
I will continue to critique that which offends, or reeks of hypocrisy, or gives off the rancid stench of inequality and moneyed liberalism, of moral cowardice, and political naivety.
I see it as a duty; to refine, to work through, to better, policy in the service of those greater goods. If, and this is the gamble, those hypocrisies, or that cowardice, becomes too much, tips over into Conservatism, them i’m afraid we’ll need to revisit – bag of blood for transfusing in tow.

As for the Greens, I have little faith, and even less respect. I believe any union detrimental to Labor.

Good to see you back, by the way.
I do hope you write and comment more.
Ella MillerJanuary 27, 2017 at 8:48 am

To All who commented on Cody’s letter to the PM, in the piece about unemployment.
His letter to the PM has been published in today’s Examiner (Tasmania) page 19.
I only wish they did not feel the need to edit out his grammatical errors…it was not necessary to do this as they did not detract from the message.I could have helped him correct but to him the message was important…so I did not.
Kaye LeeJanuary 27, 2017 at 9:06 am

Ella, I agree. Cody owned that correspondence. His message was clear. Nevertheless, that does not detract from the pride he should feel at having his voice heard. That a person so young is taking the time, not just to learn, but to think about it and to care enough to act, gives me hope for the future.

Congratulations Cody on your first published work. May it be the first of many.

Ella, you must be so proud.
Kate AhearneJanuary 27, 2017 at 9:19 am

Well done, Cody. It’s a big pity that they fiddled with your work – it was quite an ignorant thing for them to do, although they thought they were helping. I liked your version better.
PhilJanuary 27, 2017 at 9:43 am

Love this debate. I stand with Victoria and Trish. I have screamed at the ALP many times for what I saw as policy capitulation but then I always stepped back after reflecting on context. There is only one government at a time. Opposition is not a position of power and is further hamstrung today by a conservative, biased, corrupted media. In this situation merely avoiding the political wedge becomes paramount.

If progressives would only take the longer view ie put aside the gripes and work in solidarity with the aim of unseating the vile neoliberals – then when that goal is achieved and power resides with progressives the policies that so antagonise us can be thrown out

In fighting plays right into the neoliberal hands. They foster division, jealousy, anger. Resistance ignores the bait and presses on with the long haul.
helvityniJanuary 27, 2017 at 9:52 am

“Ben Chifley overcame public opposition in allowing Jewish refugees after World War II. Robert Menzies, on coming to office, continued the acceptance of the displaced people of Europe. Harold Holt skilfully, but in defiance of public opinion, commenced the dismantling of White Australia. John Gorton and Gough Whitlam continued the process. When Malcolm Fraser responded to the anguish of the Indo-Chinese people, he knew that he was acting contrary to public opinion. Bill Hayden and then Bob Hawke supported him. Yet no-one today would argue that these leaders got it wrong. We applaud their courage and leadership. John Howard and Tony Abbott were the first post war leaders to break from that bi partisan tradition and engender fear of newcomers.”

John Menadue on Pearls and Irritations ,on Australia Day

Howard and Abbott indeed started this fear campaign, Hanson has been a good student there…
guestJanuary 27, 2017 at 10:08 am

Jexpat @5.02 pm

I would be interested if you could explain how a “void” could get within an ace of winning the last election.

And why this “void” is now 54-46 against the Coalition crowd, according to at least one poll.
Kaye LeeJanuary 27, 2017 at 10:20 am

One of the divides, as I see it, is that people who aren’t invested in party politics would rather discuss policies whereas those who are party members would rather discuss how to win an election. Often the first group feel let down by what they see as the compromises/capitulations done in the name of populism. I understand that you cannot enact policy from opposition so this creates a dilemma. Do you compromise your principles in order to appeal to focus groups?

Personally, I would like to see a multi-party executive to eliminate the “winner-takes-all” aspect that corrupts the process.
Ella MillerJanuary 27, 2017 at 10:56 am

Kaye Lee,
to me focus groups are only needed if you don’t know what you are doing and what your policies are.
Smart politicians know what the electorate THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO REPRESENT feels and needs.
If the message is similar in a party why do you need focus groups?
Ella MillerJanuary 27, 2017 at 11:15 am

Kaye Lee, Kate,
thank you…I am still astonished by Cody’s depth of understanding.
I think I will have the whole page laminated and give it to him on his 18th birthday.
Yes I am so proud of all the young people who are capable of such deep thought…and there are many…and yes our future depends on them but also us being able to bring up children who are capable of critical thinking.
PS still no response from any listed politicians.
Kaye LeeJanuary 27, 2017 at 11:30 am

Ella,

My daughter wrote to our local member complaining about the lack of mobile phone reception considering it had been an election promise for the last two elections. She eventually got a personal email back with much more information than I had been able to ever find out. It took a couple of weeks though. maybe longer. On the other side of the coin, said member has blocked me from her facebook page and never responded to any of my emails or phone calls.

They should realise the value of listening to our youth and our youth, uncluttered by allegiance and cynicism, should remind them that there are solutions.
Michael TaylorJanuary 27, 2017 at 11:36 am

Ella, a few days ago I noticed that a Facebook group published Cody’s letter on their page (they must have seen it on The AIMN). I was informed, at the time, that it had had almost 40,000 views and a large number of people had shared it on their own Facebook page.
Kate AhearneJanuary 27, 2017 at 11:41 am

Thanks, Ella, Now Cody is a published author, and not only that, he’s also had his first taste of editorial interference! A most valuable experience. And, as Kaye says, he has been very clever in his choice of Grandma! Congratulations to both of you. P.S. Michael’s news about fb is wonderful.
ozibodyJanuary 27, 2017 at 11:56 am

Kaye Lee 10.20 am.

Very well expressed worthy sentiment Kaye !

The ” Will to Win ” can overcome all obstacles … except …. when it becomes the ” NEED to Win ” ….. compromise sweeps in ! ….. and when that ‘ compromise ‘ comes from an ‘ opposing ‘ force, it is naturally contains a ‘ tainted ‘ element.

Compromise from ‘ within ‘ is generally healthy. The lack of ability to effectively compromise ( absence of Wise Heads – regardless of age / gender ) has facilitated the emergence of ‘ Labels ‘… e.g. Left, Centre, Right … along with further variations of ‘ degree ‘ within these!

When my mind goes ‘ here ‘, I have to wonder just what a Master Stroke that ( legendary ? ) 0.1% has achieved over time! … and, on that strain, note it has taken a long, long time …. whilst applying that ” Will to Win ” ?!

The Trump saga is exploiting it’s absence of Social Democracy simply by capitalising upon the ” New ” element ( populism ) , and, whilst the marketer within me counsels against mentioning an opponents name, the O.N. rallies along similar lines …. with similar ( personal ? ) intent ?

Before departing, may I pose this question ……. ” How far back do we have to dig to find the ” Orators ” .of Australian Politics ? ” ….
,,.( Robert.Mensies and Jim.Killen spring quickly to mind) ….. and, what may the art of oratory, and it’s driving force ( perhaps ) imply ? …is the question simply a reflection of my ( considerable ) age ? … 🙂 …
Ella MillerJanuary 27, 2017 at 11:58 am

Kay Lee so proud of your daughter ..well done to her.As for being blocked …I would wear that as a badge of honour.

Michael Taylor
WOW , I am speechless. thanks
Kate thanks …it took a while to sink in LOL.
Michael TaylorJanuary 27, 2017 at 12:03 pm

Ella, just enquired, and it’s now 45,000 views.
Kate AhearneJanuary 27, 2017 at 12:05 pm

Michael, WOW! I wonder if you or anyone can give a link to the fb post. I’d love to share it with my fb friends.
Michael TaylorJanuary 27, 2017 at 12:09 pm

Kate, linked below. It’s probably well down their page by now though.

https://www.facebook.com/Tony-Abbott-Worst-PM-in-Australian-History-151576228341304/?ref=bookmarks
Kate AhearneJanuary 27, 2017 at 12:18 pm

Thanks Michael. I found it. The link goes through to Photos, but I found it under Posts. Shared now. The great thing is that this is the original ‘unfixedup’ version.
Michael TaylorJanuary 27, 2017 at 1:17 pm

I was please about that too, Kate. I was also pleased that they credited it to Cody.
Kaye LeeJanuary 27, 2017 at 6:49 pm

“To those who, when they look at Labor, only see asylum seeker policy, your privileged world where only one policy matters to you is a very nice place to yell at people from, but you’re once again proving you don’t have the pragmatism to see how unproductive this is”

If I was running a party where one issue was a problem for many potential supporters I would do something about that issue rather than dismissing it as identity politics. You have abandoned those who might vote for you to pander to those who never will.
Victoria RollisonJanuary 27, 2017 at 10:37 pm

Thanks Trish for your kind words. And for sharing my frustration at finding that literally without fail, everytime I write about Labor, no matter what topic, there is without fail a comment about asylum seeker policy. I don’t feel attacked by this type of thing but I am bored and frustrated by it. It’s one-track, unthinking, repetitive, tired old crap. The same people who stick to this old anti-Labor narrative, interestingly, stick like glue to the Greens and never have a bad thing to say about them. Where were these people when the Greens were voting for a neoliberal attack on pensions? I would expect a backlash from true progressives, but no, the Greens supporters are too busy peppering off-topic comments about Labor’s asylum seeker policy. Still. Yawn.
Kate AhearneJanuary 27, 2017 at 11:07 pm

Victoria, Just for the record – I am not a Greens supporter. Can’t speak for others.
RoswellJanuary 27, 2017 at 11:17 pm

Victoria, I think you’ll find that Trish is not the only one who gave you kind words.
Matters NotJanuary 27, 2017 at 11:25 pm

a comment about asylum seeker policy. I don’t feel attacked by this type of thing but I am bored and frustrated by it. It’s one-track, unthinking, repetitive, tired old crap.

Really? A one-track, unthinking, repetitive, tired old crap – bored and frustrated .

Yawn as much as you like, but the reality of mandatory detention began with Labor – remember Gerry Hand – and is now part of the political common sense. In short, Labor created the low moral ground and now refuses to rise above it.

But perhaps I am part of the ‘unthinking’ group?
JexpatJanuary 27, 2017 at 11:30 pm

The fact that folks are still engaging with Queen Victoria’s (that’s what she calls herself) obsessions and narcisism -which can be seen ad nauseum on her blog, twitter feed and elsewhere (wherein there’s nothing to show she cares about anyone other than herself- and whatever ‘tribe” she aspires to…be paid by?) is somewhat disheartening.

The bottom line is that much of what we see- repeatedly- from her and a couple of others here is in many ways the same sort of thing that Trump did.
paulwalterJanuary 27, 2017 at 11:44 pm

Yes the narrative or critiique is basically correct. Both sides keep nit picking instead of sitting down together and talking stuff through. Far more to gain than lose but it wont happen because wounded pride is a severe task master.
Trish CorryJanuary 28, 2017 at 12:21 am

You are welcome Victoria. I am a true fan of your work. I think you are an exceptional writer and I will continue to promote your work on all my social media platforms. Keep up the great work that you do. You are a very positive voice and one who challenges the norms in our political narrative for the bright future we need.
Michael TaylorJanuary 28, 2017 at 12:30 am

Jexpat, Victoria has the right to call herself whatever she likes on Twitter. I had noticed that dozens of people changed their ‘name’ on social media to reflect nobility in response to Tony Abbott’s knighthood to Prince Philip. It’s done as a joke.

And it appears that you don’t like what Victoria tweets. Don’t follow her, if that’s the case.
Michael TaylorJanuary 28, 2017 at 12:33 am

PS: I have followed Victoria on Twitter for many years and I can confirm that she did indeed change her Twitter name within days of Tony Abbott’s knighthood to the prince.
JexpatJanuary 28, 2017 at 12:41 am

And here comes Trish again:

A person who, be forewarned: if you try to earnestly her her with a project- but end up somehow crossing her, she may stab you in the back- and perhaps attempt to defame you on other forums, when called on by another of the small, close knit set of the “we hate Greens crew.”

All after having a childishish foot stomping temper tanty, leaving AIMN -and posting elswhere tthat she wasn’t coming back.

This is all on the record, just as Queen Victoria’s bits are. Just as James Moylan’s bits were.

Sorry this sort of thing has to be said, but sometimes for the sake of honesty, it does.
JexpatJanuary 28, 2017 at 12:57 am

Michael:

Anyone has the right to call themselves whatever they want- or put whatever hat on they might like on their head.

Yet, those choices do… say things. Just as what gets ‘tweeted does.” Just as bio’s do.

We don’t necessarily have to like or dislike what’s tweeted on anyone’s feed, but what’s tweeted over time does tell a story. And it’s a story that folks, if they would like, can see for themselves. And see if that story is consistent with other angles (such as the original post here).

That’s all that I’m saying here: with respect to honesty.
JohnoJanuary 28, 2017 at 6:27 am

Wow, another shit fight…. stephengp2014, I am happy with the name greens, but in our wonderful new world of upgrading and out with the old and in with the new, maybe I am just a wee bit old fashioned.
corvus boreusJanuary 28, 2017 at 6:34 am

Kaye Lee (6:49 27/1),
If i was running a political party and, after years of constant public demand, saw a credible poll indicating overwhelming public support (>80%) for a federal anti-corruption investigation, I would be doing a lot more than some talk about talking about it later.
Then again, I viscerally despise political corruption, believe that such is systemically occurring throughout our federal governance, and do not gain financially benefit from glaring flaws in the current system.
corvus boreusJanuary 28, 2017 at 7:17 am

I would add that if Shorten/Labor act as indicated and propose/pass a motion for the ‘Establishment of a Select Senate Committee to examine the case for and against a Federal Integrity Commission’, there is credibility to the composition of the committee.

Last time around the members chosen appointed were 2 LIB-NATS (current policy opposes), 2 LABS (current policy opposes), the sole remaing PUP (?) and a former Family First turned INDI (?).
The GRNs, who, for all their obvious flaws, have supported the establishment of an independent federal anti-corruption body for many years, and have tabled several bills proposing such, were deliberately excluded from official participation in discussions.
That looked very suspicious, since the 10%-ers obviously have some reasonably well-advanced thoughts on the matter.

It looked very much like the deliberate formation of ‘just the right kind of committee’.
Victoria RollisonJanuary 28, 2017 at 7:47 am

Jexpat, not that I care what you think of me, but Michael is right: Queen Victoria is a joke based on Abbott’s Knights and Dames, which stuck. And no, I’m not paid to write or tweet or anything. Glad you dislike what I’m saying, shows it challenges your thinking.
Victoria RollisonJanuary 28, 2017 at 7:48 am

Roswell, also thank you for your kind words and your dedication to commenting on my posts.
Cheers
Kaye LeeJanuary 28, 2017 at 8:44 am

” we just need to be better at talking about it AS A UNIFIED MOVEMENT. IN SOLIDARITY! ”

Speaking as what you would label as an “even-more-hipster-too-cool-to-join-someone-else’s-movement progressive”, who “frustrates and bores” you with my “one-track, unthinking, repetitive, tired old crap” and lack of “pragmatism”, I don’t feel particularly inspired to join you in the trenches dug by the Labor Party.

This is not just about asylum seekers (though I find the dismissal of that festering sore unacceptable). It is also about the populism that led to the knifing of two sitting PMs. We were told Rudd had to go because he was impossible to work with. Ok I suppose but that was shown to be rather disingenuous when Labor then dumped a PM who was renowned for her negotiating skills.

And then when I heard Shorten say “We believe in climate change, we don’t believe in passing the problems of pollution to future generations and our focus will be on renewable energy and there is going to be no carbon tax,” I wanted to scream. Where was the courage to support what they knew was the right thing to do?

If you want people to join together then stop belittling them.
Kate AhearneJanuary 28, 2017 at 9:16 am

Victoria, ‘Glad you dislike what I’m saying, shows it challenges your thinking.’
Trish CorryJanuary 28, 2017 at 10:33 am

Jexpat – you sound like a very creepy stalker – a very delusional one at that. What a bold statement to make about someone you don’t know. Do you have nothing else better to do with your time?
nurses1968January 28, 2017 at 12:13 pm

It seems there is a little group that must have a saved folder, all prepared for a Victoria Rollinson or Trish Corry or come to think of it Sean Stinson article, same lot, same M.O.
Trish, add conspiracy theorist as to posters and you have Jexpat profiled
Kaye LeeJanuary 28, 2017 at 12:45 pm

Oh the irony
Kate AhearneJanuary 28, 2017 at 1:46 pm

Kaye, Yes, you’re right. it’s not just asylum seekers. It is also, as you say, the politics of carbon and climate change and the ‘knifing’. (Although I can understand the original knifing of Kevin, the knifing of Julia is pretty much incomprehensible to me – and to replace her with Kevin AGAIN!) There’s quite a list of things about the Labor Party that could do with a bit of clear-eyed scrutiny. I just thought I’d add a couple to your list

The fact that the party has allowed the situation to arise whereby it is now next to impossible to replace a leader who’s not quite up to the job.
The fact that not all of the rorters are on the LNP side of politics.
And here’s a little one from the last election. Here in Tasmania, Lisa Singh, who had been doing a very good job for her state, was relegated to the last place on the Labor ticket for the Senate. She got back in because a hell of a lot of Tasmanian Labor voters took the trouble to number every box on the Senate ballot paper so that they could put Singh first. That’s a lot of voters who didn’t like what the party (or the ruling faction) had chosen to do.

The list goes a lot further, and I’m sure other readers have their own items to add to it. The cracks are too wide to be papered over – they do need to be addressed. And no amount of name-calling or denigration of people or groups of people is going to fix anything. And no amount of ignoring a problem is going to make it go away.

Oh, Oh, Oh, the irony.
Kaye LeeJanuary 28, 2017 at 1:55 pm

They did the same to Louise Pratt in WA replacing her with Joe Bullock who ended up quitting because he couldn’t contain his homophobia.

I was also disappointed about the backflip on the Schoolkids Bonus and on the lowering of the RET particularly when they have a policy of 50% renewables by 2030.

I understood the rationale behind cutting the single parents pension – grandfathering had led to people being subject to different rules and payments – but that was a bad choice of places to look for savings, particularly when the grandfathering would end in the not too far distant future. A lot of pain for miniscule gain.

Cutting university funding to pay for Gonski was also disappointing even though they had overseen record increases.

It was wrong to let the mining companies dictate the MRRT without input from government departments just because you are scared of an advertising campaign. But at least they got it started and could have tweaked it later.
corvus boreusJanuary 28, 2017 at 2:01 pm

KL,
You mean nurses1968 launching a completely unsupportable (thus most likely false) claim of a group conspiracy, then immediately accusing another poster of being a conspiracy theorist? Ironic, but unsurprising.
Such logical inconsistencies and vague slurs seem to constitute her main contributions to this site.
Kaye LeeJanuary 28, 2017 at 2:17 pm

Agreement could be injurious to your reputation cb. Suffice to say you are a perspicacious bird. Moving right along…..
Kate AhearneJanuary 28, 2017 at 2:25 pm

Thanks, Kaye, and I’d forgotten that example of the WA Senate debacle – that was parochial of me. It’s getting to be a significant list of things that some of us are not happy about with Labor. Some issues are perhaps more significant than others, but so far nothing that might be called insignificant. I wonder if other commenters have anything to add.
nurses1968January 28, 2017 at 2:32 pm

Kate Ahearne
I am pleased Lisa singh got re elected but the fact is it was her own left faction of the ALP in Tasmania who voted her onto the unwinnable spot
And Kate, “not happy about with Labor”. there are a myriad of other parties for you to vote for, no one holds a gun at your head
Kate AhearneJanuary 28, 2017 at 3:12 pm

nurses, I don’t give a flying fruitbat which faction it was that did the dirty on Lisa Singh. What I care about is that ANY faction would behave that way.

As for all those other parties I could vote for – I don’t want to vote LNP or Pauline Hanson or even for the Greens. I want to be able to support Labor wholeheartedly, but the way things are, I can’t do that.

This is a serious question, nurses. Do you believe that there is absolutely nothing at all in or about the Labor Party that needs to be addressed, nothing at all that could be better than it is?
nurses1968January 28, 2017 at 3:24 pm

Kate Ahearne
Of course things can change within the ALP that is why they have Policy committees, tactics committees , branches, membership Union involvement etc.
It is an ongoing process and ultimately a set of policies {like Bills 100} will be there for the voters to decide.
Policies need to be acceptable to a majority of voters not just alleged progressives as they make up about 15% of the voting public.
When policies are released and an election rolls around they will either sink or swim on that basis.
Bottom line is, Labor will decide policy and direction and if it isn’t up to your expectations don’t vote for them
Kaye LeeJanuary 28, 2017 at 3:30 pm

I must stress that I was very happy overall with the Gillard government. I have pointed out a few things that didn’t sit comfortably but the list of groundbreaking legislation would take pages. I found her an outstanding leader of whom I was proud. No-one is perfect. I wish criticism was not taken as insult.
Kate AhearneJanuary 28, 2017 at 3:40 pm

Kaye, I agree about the Gillard government. I think history will treat Julia Gillard very kindly indeed.

nurses, Thanks for all that info. Which are the things you would change if you could?
Trish CorryJanuary 28, 2017 at 4:10 pm

Test.
Trish CorryJanuary 28, 2017 at 4:10 pm

Hmm ok. I can’t post my comment. but I can just post ‘test”
Kaye LeeJanuary 28, 2017 at 4:14 pm

If it was long, try splitting it up Trish. Sometimes it freaks out with long posts or a lot of links.
Robert G. ShawJanuary 28, 2017 at 4:28 pm

Well said Nurses, a common sense reply.
There will never be, can never be, a complete policy package. The nature of the
beast is compromise.

Those that seek a wholesale package belong in Idealism 101.
And are best avoided; there is no sensible, practical rebuttal to the question “but, what if….?”

It’s at this very juncture that I side with Victoria and Trish.
Of the two currently available for now, and the foreseeable future, despite the pixie dust dreamland hopes of some, Labor is our best bet.
No question, no argument.

And to those that place their entire critique on the single policy – asylum seekers for example – well they are for reproach: the whole greater than the sum of its parts.

Meanwhile, Trump drops his executive order.
And I for one, am smiling at the chutzpah.

Damn, this is gonna be a fun ride!!!

🙂
Kaye LeeJanuary 28, 2017 at 4:33 pm

It would be a very ugly world with no idealism.
Robert G. ShawJanuary 28, 2017 at 4:48 pm

Perhaps,
but it’s an ugly world with it – look at where we are now.

Idealism, tempered is my outlook.

It makes me laugh and welcome and dread and critique a freak occurrence like Trump all at the same time!

Try it.
It’s like running through a field of knee high wild flowers in the north coast hinterland.
Naked.

It will dissuade you of earnestness.
And spare you NOT the uglier sight of having to stare into the mirror of our own complicity.

Spare you not.
Kaye LeeJanuary 28, 2017 at 4:54 pm

“spare you NOT the uglier sight of having to stare into the mirror of our own complicity. Spare you not.”

You wax lyrical Robert. It makes me feel like you have never read a word I have written, but nice turn of phrase.

Please spare me the frolic imagery, I can only take so much reality with my idealism. One man’s liberation is another woman’s nightmare.
Robert G. ShawJanuary 28, 2017 at 5:27 pm

“wax lyrical”?
Hardly.
I’m trying to communicate an idea.

Yes, I’ve read the words you’ve written.
Not all, admittedly.
But who can blame me?

Yours is a thankless task.
Pity, the ruling motif.
Despite the accolades weighing you down, daily.
How are your shoulders?

For the life of me…..I don’t know how you do it,
without cringing.

Perhaps you do.
hard to say….this side of the screen.

– Trump is our invention.
Best not to underestimate his reach.
Best to keep the mindless Left criticisms to a minimum.
Best not encourage those that know no other way.

Executive order number 6.
At least the man is keeping his promises.
It will affirm the trust of those in Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania who gave him the throne.
And confuse the Democrats, and the Left, who are still bickering over intersectionality.

Is it true that Linda Sarsour dropped several tweets heralding the righteousness of Sharia??
I read 8 Left news outlets and blogs that said it was a lie.

it must be true, I thought.

Lo and behold……
😉
Kate AhearneJanuary 28, 2017 at 5:38 pm

Steady on, Robert, please.
RoswellJanuary 28, 2017 at 5:45 pm

I see that the man who loves dishing out insults has returned.
Trish CorryJanuary 28, 2017 at 6:08 pm

I think the example of Louise Pratt is a perfect example in context of Victoria’s article.

The Liberal party has anti-woman preselection policies which aim to make it hard for women, since it’s inception and the men in blue ties will not budge on this. Instead of those on the left defined within Victoria’s article; instead of pushing for more women on the conservative side, or championing more for this in general, it is easier to cherry pick and criticise Labor for one isolated incident. This is a regular observable phenomenon and obviously not just by me, because this article is about just that (not written by me).

Despite Labor having very defined women friendly policies for pre-selection, a commitment to affirmative action, women mentors, champions of Quotas, most women on the front bench ever. Most women in a shadow ministry ever, the Party with the first Female Prime Minister. The Party with the first woman premier in WA, NSW, VIC, QLD and TAS etc., etc., it is easier to cherry pick one instance and present Labor as a party which is very bad for women.

My personal thoughts on why some on the left do this, is they think that it will lift up the Greens (their ‘true left). However, all it does it lift up the Right.
Trish CorryJanuary 28, 2017 at 6:09 pm

When non-party aligned voters read such claims online, they automatically do not dedicate their vote to the Greens when those on the left continuously try to put Labor in the bin. They turn to a right wing Independent, or Hanson, or even the Liberals. Because they are not particularly engaged, but the hypocrisy they just read about voiced online or in the street, or at the checkout, sends their vote to a party that may be actually harmful to women.

These types on the Left – always critical of Labor push down the left and lift up the right.

It would be much better if those on the left, instead of cherry picking isolated incidents to make a negative point about Labor, did something that was actually leftist. Champion change within conservative ranks, insist women in the Greens be placed in winnable seat/s in the lower house, instead, there are those on the left who are happy with just having Adam Bandt, because their criticisms of a male in the only winnable seat for the Greens so far are not in abundance.

It is fair to be critical, but such criticisms should be put into a context of this is what we have, this is what was done, how can it be redressed. But that is not possible, because it is evident to a staunch Labor person like me that those who continuously complain about Labor are oblivious to the core values of the party, or the actual inner workings of the party. Even someone as myself who is in a branch has a different experience than say someone in Victoria. So those on the outside looking in, are certainly not the experts they always claim to be.
Trish CorryJanuary 28, 2017 at 6:09 pm

The key is that where criticism is warranted, the Labor value is to seek to redress this, through the development of policy and party rules. The idea of Labor being a true progressive party, really goes over the head of many on the left. Otherwise, they would cease the negative cherry picking to suit their own self-serving bias.

Those who are serious about redressing inequality for women in politics and want to actually see women in power, in a party that can form Government; would join the Labor Party. When men like those in the Pratt case, decided that their idea was a good idea, these left women should be at the table, shouting at these men that they are wrong and they will not support it. Then they would demand through conference that policy is written to ensure this type of thing never happens again. Labor woman and Labor men, both called this out. A new policy would ensure OR more serious women at the actual table, would ensure such idiocy from men would never happen again.

My point here should not be misconstrued as it always is that people cannot be critical of Labor. My point is there are those on the left, who are always critical of Labor above all else, always are critical of Labor, out of context, or always remain silent on Labor’s wider agenda and don’t do anything real to to action change. However, I believe they continuously cherry pick and present Labor in a negative light, because they foolishly think it is good for the left (or the “true left” – the Greens). However, all they do is lift up the right.
Trish CorryJanuary 28, 2017 at 6:10 pm

Thanks Kaye. However, I couldn’t even get onto the site before, not even on my phone. But I did split it just in case.
Kate AhearneJanuary 28, 2017 at 6:22 pm

Trish, You say, ‘ …it is easier to cherry pick one instance and present Labor as a party which is very bad for women.’ Make that two instances, please Trish. Louise Pratt in WA and Lisa Singh in Tasmania. And I don’t recall that anyone suggested that it was done because Labor is a ‘party which is very bad for women’ – Maybe I missed that bit, and I’ll be happy to apologise if you can find it and point it out to me. But I think that’s something you assumed.

Let me ask you, Trish, if there were three things you would change about Labor tomorrow if you could, what would they be?
Trish CorryJanuary 28, 2017 at 6:27 pm

I stand corrected.. Cherry pick two. Please don’t miss my point. I think my point is well constructed, not pointed at anyone and I’ve taken the time to take any emotion out of it. in the hope that that people may actually take my comment seriously.

I hope that suffices for the commentariate on AIMN.

I think you have missed my point about what this type of narrative infers to others. How others hear the narrative. How what they hear turns into votes.

I am not getting into a personal tete te tete about my ‘personal feelings’ as this is not the point of my comment. I’m not interested in any deflection. I would appreciate discussion in the context of my reply.
Kaye LeeJanuary 28, 2017 at 6:34 pm

Happens sometimes to me too Trish. I just see the AIMN header and am unable to post. The gremlins fix themselves eventually.

I have never accepted the “but what about them” defence. My response has always been, as a teacher and a mother, and even to a degree in this conversation, “We are talking about what you did”. (you meaning the Labor Party in this case).

It is the Labor Party that I wish to support. You say ” left women should be at the table, shouting at these men that they are wrong and they will not support it”. Consider this my version of doing that. Surely the party is still interested in the opinions of non-members about things they might improve?

I cannot speak for others but you ascribe motivations to me that just aren’t correct, particularly in regard to the Greens. And I doubt anyone here would be swayed to vote for the right by our discussions.
Kaye LeeJanuary 28, 2017 at 6:42 pm

To Robert,

Don’t applaud, just throw money
Trish CorryJanuary 28, 2017 at 6:47 pm

I think where we differ Kaye is that my field is as an organisational behaviourist – I see patterns in narrative. i see consequence of narrative. Things like lived experience, phenomenology, constructed meaning and emotional contagion, symbolic interactionism inform my view.

Of course the party is interested in the opinion of non-members. However, no party is absolutely perfect. This however, is a standard that as a Labor member I feel there is a huge chunk on the left who continuously criticise Labor for not being perfect, at the detriment of the left. If Labor was perfect, then there would not need to be a progressive party.

Perfection is not static. What formed views of women’s role in society in the 1970’s for example, is not the same view now. I do feel the Labor party plays a strong role in shifting the narrative of women in leadership.

Often there are pockets in any organisation or group, who will use any opportunity to support their own agenda – including political parties. Labor is a political party and not immune to this. However, as a collective, we can apply a risk management view to this and redress this happening again. However, it is up to those who decide to join the party, who have a voice in what this change is.

I’m not singling you out, my view is just a general observation. It is a phenomenon of the left. In particular the AS policy as pointed out earlier. This is a very difficult policy to debate online, because it is a very complex situation. It is a true ‘wicked problem’ in the sense of the word. However, the only major party who can be pushed to the left by strong voices on this issue is Labor. I do not see the point in denigrating Labor for the Liberals to win, if anyone cares at all about Asylum Seekers. Labor’s policy has an entire range of safeguards and measures to ensure humane and just treatment – however there are those on the left who scream that Labor’s policy supports torture. Those types of emotions by those on the left, do have an impact on others and it does nothing to really pick apart Labor’s policy. It does not lend itself to saying – OK this is acceptable, but we need to improve on this. With a policy that deals with people’s lives, although it is not my personal ideal, screaming that it is about Labor torturing human beings, does nothing but keep these human beings there when the Liberals get back in when these people put Labor last.
Kaye LeeJanuary 28, 2017 at 7:02 pm

“the only major party who can be pushed to the left by strong voices on this issue [asylum seekers] is Labor.”

And I will keep trying despite the discomfort it causes.

In July 2013 Victoria wrote…

“I guess where I’m feeling most confused is trying to reconcile my feelings about the policy, with the underlying dread that Rudd is just doing this to win votes. But then, isn’t beating Abbott, and stopping him turning back boats, a justifiable motive for doing whatever it takes to win the election? And is the PNG solution really as evil as many people are making out? I haven’t decided, but I appreciate the opportunity to think aloud, to analyse the situation”

But then Labor added boat turnbacks to their policy as well.

I still share the unease that Victoria once felt and I think it important to discuss, as she once did too, particularly in light of what we now know about the abuse and mental and physical harm that goes on there.

“Things like lived experience, phenomenology, constructed meaning and emotional contagion, symbolic interactionism inform my view.” Is there anyone for whom that doesn’t apply?
Trish CorryJanuary 28, 2017 at 7:17 pm

I share unease about the Asylum seeker policy too – but I don’t over react over it and scream that Labor are the same as Liberals so put both of them last, in the hope of some deleterious state this means that the Di Natale will be Prime Minister. Complex policy such as this takes a lot of work and a lot of negotiation and a lot of bipartisanship when it can be found. Labor however, cannot and will not be able to implement a framework that will assist those seeking asylum, if the Liberals remain in power.

I also do not judge Labor on this one policy. There common narrative from many on the left, is with a purposeful aim to ensure that Labor does not win Government because of this policy. These people do not understand, nor respect or system and they do not understand or respect many of the minors and Independents are not leftist parties. To be a single issue voter, is to be okay with the detrimental affects the single party that voter may choose, may have in every other single area of policy.

This is bigger than me and my personal feelings. My personal preferred model is far from what the Labor policy is. However, this does not mean that my preferred model, does not have risks, or may be detrimental to others or create other types of injustice. My view is a narrow view based on my feelings…on my empathy for others. It is not a expert informed view from all angles. This is what parties need to do. I do not have access to the range of experts whom inform this policy – nor is it my area of expertise/research or study. However the politicians do. That does not mean I accept what Labor’s policy is in its entirety. However, as a member of Labor I can use my voice to push for the changes I want within Labor on this issue. Those who complain from the outside, do not have this opportunity; but they could if they wanted to.

I seriously do not agree with punitive jobsearch measures and I won’t shut up inside Labor until punitive measures are no longer within the jobseeker framework. However, I am not going to encourage others to put Labor last or turf Labor out – or insist on a hodgepodge of Independents and minors who may in reality treat jobseekers much worse.
Kate AhearneJanuary 28, 2017 at 7:26 pm

Trish, it’s very interesting that you have chosen not to answer my query about the 3 things you would change tomorrow if you could. You say, ‘I’m not interested in any deflection. I would appreciate discussion in the context of my reply.’ I’m not interested in any deflection, either, Trish, and I find it very boring when you do it. And I can well understand that you ‘would appreciate discussion in the context of my reply’. Wouldn’t we all, Trish? But we’re not always getting it.

I could well understand that as an active member of the party, you mightn’t be allowed to answer questions such as mine. If that’s the case, I apologise for my persistence – you only have to say so.

Actually, I know full well that what other people hear turns into votes, and that’s one of the very big things that has worried me about your style of discourse.

You say, ‘… left women should be at the table, shouting at these men that they are wrong and they will not support it’. I thought Kaye’s response to that remark was measured and calm and so powerful in the context of this discussion. And, quite frankly, ‘shouting at these men that they are wrong’ is not something I would want to do. it wouldn’t be intelligent, reasonable or convincing, and it wouldn’t work.

‘ My point is there are those on the left, who are always critical of Labor above all else, always are critical of Labor, out of context, or always remain silent on Labor’s wider agenda and don’t do anything real to to action change.’ I don’t know who those people might be, Trish. But Kaye’s not one of them, and neither am I.

‘I think my point is well constructed, not pointed at anyone and I’ve taken the time to take any emotion out of it. in the hope that that people may actually take my comment seriously.’ Thanks for that, Yes, I think it has really helped you to get your message across. Maybe your message would be even more powerful if you were to go easy on the generalisations. You know what they say: ‘All generalisations are false – including this one’.

Trish, you don’t need to be quite so sensitive about Labor’s great achievements. Shout them from the rooftops, by all means, but it’s not an either/or situation, is it? Not black and white? Not all right and no wrong?
Kaye LeeJanuary 28, 2017 at 7:28 pm

“as a member of Labor I can use my voice to push for the changes I want within Labor on this issue. Those who complain from the outside, do not have this opportunity”

Perhaps not….presupposing that Labor doesn’t listen to anyone or anything said outside branch meetings and annual general conference. If they are that closed to public opinion then we will have to rely on the Labor Party members here to pass on concerns if they think them warranted and Labor can just let us have a say one day every three years.

And I agree about jobsearch. While you’re at it, can you please point them towards the mountain of research and community/business agreement that we should increase the Newstart payment. The benefits are obvious.
Trish CorryJanuary 28, 2017 at 7:38 pm

“Things like lived experience, phenomenology, constructed meaning and emotional contagion, symbolic interactionism inform my view.” Is there anyone for whom that doesn’t apply?

I can’t speak for everyone Kaye. I have no idea how many people in the world that those things listed above would inform their view. My point was I don’t respond as a mother or a teacher. I was just responding in kind about what informs me. I didn’t say it for a point of debate.

I’m sure others do not all think like me, as there are others who do not believe in multiple realities, multiple truth, constructed meaning, interpretivist thought, do not value lived experience, do not believe in such a thing as emotional contagion.

An individual’s ethics framework also does come into play for how it shapes a person’s world view and decision making. So with their decision making, they may take a Utilitarian approach, some people may have an underpinning of egoism which informs their world view. Clearly this is the case, otherwise, we would not have political parties based on individualism, authoritarianism or socialism etc., etc.,

So no, I don’t think that all those things above inform everyone’s world view. We are all unique.

If these things did apply to everyone – I’d love to ask Pauline Hanson “From the perspective of symbolic interactionism, what are your observations of the emotional affect individuals and minority groups within society experience as they respond to your nationalistic narrative? and how do you believe you have shaped this new world?”

hahah her face would be a crack up.
Trish CorryJanuary 28, 2017 at 7:39 pm

Trish, it’s very interesting that you have chosen not to answer my query about the 3 things you would change tomorrow if you could.

No it isn’t interesting it is boring. I’ve played this game on here for many years. I’m not playing today. Thanks anyway Kate.
Kaye LeeJanuary 28, 2017 at 7:48 pm

I thought all those phrases meant we are a product of our experiences which I would say is pretty universal.

Instead of asking Pauline ““From the perspective of symbolic interactionism, what are your observations of the emotional affect individuals and minority groups within society experience as they respond to your nationalistic narrative?” you could just ask “Do you think your words might hurt people?” Depends on if you are looking for an answer or not I suppose.
Kate AhearneJanuary 28, 2017 at 7:49 pm

Maybe not interesting to you, Trish, but very interesting to me. I have learned from it.

‘ multiple realities, multiple truth’ Yep.

‘“From the perspective of symbolic interactionism, what are your observations of the emotional affect individuals and minority groups within society experience as they respond to your nationalistic narrative? and how do you believe you have shaped this new world?”

If you spoke to Pauline Hanson like that and thought ‘her face would be a crack up’, what kind of a human being would that make you?
Trish CorryJanuary 28, 2017 at 8:00 pm

“Perhaps not….presupposing that Labor doesn’t listen to anyone or anything said outside branch meetings and annual general conference. If they are that closed to public opinion then we will have to rely on the Labor Party members here to pass on concerns if they think them warranted and Labor can just let us have a say one day every three years.”

*****

Of course Labor listens to others outside of the party and outside of conference. However, like all parties, Labor has it’s particular framework which informs policy. That is a democratic socialist approach with rank and file involvement and a very public conference open to scrutiny.

However, that does not mean that the decisions Labor arrives at, as a collective is not the perfect result for everyone. Not even everyone in the party. But that is what progressives do, they keep fighting. Unions are another example. Wouldn’t it be a wonderful world if there was a perfect party for absolutely everyone. To be realistic

For example, it took unions over ten years to redress pay disparity for those in the community sector. Is it perfect now? No. Is it better than it was? Hell yes. Should they have just given up and abandoned the union because they didn’t get the result they wanted the first time. No, they did not. They kept fighting.

Labor party members, in my experience, do talk to people and do bring things to the table. However, I think the point here is we are talking about those who are very engaged in politics and have the position of holding Labor to account for everything (I refer to Victoria’s previous article – Labor Obsessed) and have an agenda of pushing Labor down to replace them with whatever they believe is better.

The focus of this article is about these people and this discussion is turning into I feel from my own perspective asking me to explain every single imperfection within the party. I cannot do that I am sorry. I am a mere member in a regional town. I am not the collective of grassroots members across Australia, nor am I in a position of any decision making power in any executive.

However, the reality of what is outlined in this article is the constant sniping from some in the left, holding Labor to account for everything, expecting perfection and denigrating them on a single issue, is to the detriment of the left. This does not work for ‘the common good’ (to use Bill’s book title). People just end up hating Labor, putting them last and Labor members end up exhausted from fighting the conservatives as well as those who are also supposed to be fighting the conservatives, but are too busy fighting Labor. and then we all sit back for another three years and watch the conservatives ruin the country.
Trish CorryJanuary 28, 2017 at 8:02 pm

“Do you think your words might hurt people?” Kaye is a very kind of simplified version of what I posed as a question, but my question asks of her so much more.
trishcorryJanuary 28, 2017 at 8:10 pm

Oh Kate. What type of person would that make me? What type of person would take pleasure in seeing the confusion on Hansons face if posed with a complex question? What type of person would that make me? It would make me the same as most people in the country.
Kaye LeeJanuary 28, 2017 at 8:11 pm

I can understand the exhaustion Labor must feel defending the indefensible. Imagine how exhausting it is for refugee advocates who are fighting both major parties. To paraphrase slightly – Should they just give up and abandon the refugees because they didn’t get the result they wanted the first time. No, they should not. They keep fighting.

“have an agenda of pushing Labor down to replace them with whatever they believe is better”

Or the increasingly vain hope, it seems, that their party of choice might listen to their concerns and suggestions and improve.

“Labor members end up exhausted from fighting the conservatives as well as those who are also supposed to be fighting the conservatives, but are too busy fighting Labor. and then we all sit back for another three years and watch the conservatives ruin the country.”

That is a bit rich. Do you have any idea how hard I, and many others, fought for Gillard and how gutted I was when she was thrown away. The Labor Party did that to us and to themselves.

And what do you think your question to Hanson would achieve – introspection? Remorse? A change of heart? Or a win for you?
Kate AhearneJanuary 28, 2017 at 8:20 pm

Kaye, I’m still getting over the Pauline Hanson remark. God knows how close I came to saying something really, really angry. Nasty even. And I loved your response – ‘“Do you think your words might hurt people?”
Trish, ‘“Do you think your words might hurt people?” Kaye is a very kind of simplified version of what I posed as a question, but my question asks of her so much more.’ No, Victoria, it really doesn’t. It does, however, raise some serious questions about YOUR attitudes.
Kate AhearneJanuary 28, 2017 at 8:25 pm

Trish, ‘What type of person would that make me? It would make me the same as most people in the country.’ I hope with all my heart that you are dead wrong about that.
Kaye LeeJanuary 28, 2017 at 8:28 pm

Getting back to the article and broader discussion, for me it has boiled down to this.

We are all on the same side in wanting to improve the lives of all people whilst protecting the environment and encouraging sustainable practice.

Some are focused on the political mechanism, some on the scientific or technological mechanism, some on the financial mechanism, some on the social and legal mechanisms, some on the current problems and ultimate goals, some just on surviving today.

Everyone’s contribution plays a part.
Trish CorryJanuary 28, 2017 at 8:34 pm

Ok your the one telling the story. Personally I proudly own up to taking delight in anything that makes Hanson look like a dickhead. Sorry if that word is not allowed
Kate AhearneJanuary 28, 2017 at 8:36 pm

Kaye, Yes. I’ve been trying to copy and paste the graphic at the top of the article, but I can’t seem to get it to happen. So instead, I thought I’d copy and paste these words from Victoria’s article. I’m assuming they are her words, as they’re not attributed to anyone else. :

Your rights are my rights. Your community is my community. Your environment is my environment. When you are better off, I am better off. When you are sick, I am sick. When you are poor, I am poor. We are all in this together. So, we need to work together to uphold each others rights: rights at work, right to be free from harm, free from discrimination, free from poverty, a right to a good education, good healthcare, a right to marry who we love, to live peacefully practicing any or no religion we like. When you have a job, I have a job. When your environment is safe, my environment is safe. When you are prosperous, I am prosperous. When you are happy and well, I am happy and well. We all do our bit and everyone benefits. I care about you and you care about me. The community is better off when the community is better off. That is all that matters.
trishcorryJanuary 28, 2017 at 8:39 pm

Yes I agree Kaye. I thinks this article highlights that the constant negative narrative of some prevents us from ever achieving that in real terms, but casts that aside to be subjected to a conservative regime all in the name of “personal aims”
trishcorryJanuary 28, 2017 at 8:42 pm

Unfortunately in saying that, I don’t think anything will change, not even in this small space in society of AIMN where Victoria has highlighted this as a real issue.
jimhazJanuary 28, 2017 at 9:09 pm

[I seriously do not agree with punitive jobsearch measures and I won’t shut up inside Labor until punitive measures are no longer within the jobseeker framework]

There in lies the problem. For the sort of ALP leadership group many want, there would be no need to have to “not shut up”. Up to a point, resistance should be minimal.

It depends on what you seek. Naturally some “lighter at first, more excuses accepted” punitive measures would be required, but undoing what is occurring now shouldn’t require much debate.

Underneath that though we’d want a government that actually tackles the causes of high situational unemployment, and as a lesser point to progressively return the CES into being the primary provider.

Although tackling root causes is an immensely difficult task – nigh on impossible – only the ALP has sufficient power to do it. We’ll complain until they have a leadership group that might give real improvement a go.

Remove the appeal that leads people to destructive parties or we shall ever be of little faith.

Sanders position gave us hope. There seems to be no Sanders-like news in ALP talk. We had a bit with Dastyari – but look where that ended.

The Shorten faction is a problem. Very much establishment. I find it impossible to place any trust in him.

I have no idea of how union leaderships groups work, but I cannot shake the idea that lesser forms of HSU gravy training is occurring in many unions, but it is just the HSU where this got way out of control. The problem is how little they have to do, or can do, for members nowadays. They can’t seek higher wages, or improved conditions, they rarely strike, they’ve been legally restricted, they aren’t relied much even by members, they are not widely respected, their market has decreased by contract based employment, they are rarely in the news or seem to want to be regarding social issues. My view is this lack of rewarding activity is turning some to the trough, and to lose what motivated them to become an active union delegate – altruism. I see Shorten and his crowd like this.
Kaye LeeJanuary 28, 2017 at 9:19 pm

“Yes I agree Kaye. I thinks this article highlights that the constant negative narrative of some prevents us from ever achieving that in real terms, but casts that aside to be subjected to a conservative regime all in the name of “personal aims””

I am not sure what you are agreeing with but I didn’t say anything like that Trish.
trishcorryJanuary 28, 2017 at 9:31 pm

Of course you would not have said that Kaye. I don’t see that we share the same perspective on this.

My apologies, it should read I agree etc but However, I think …….

I should have started with “however”
corvus boreusJanuary 28, 2017 at 10:52 pm

For the record, although I believe that incarcerating children who have committed no crime is morally repugnant, I also recognize that , when Labor continue to defend such travesties being perpetrated upon asylum seekers, they are skirting around a complex issue that is both controversial and relatively peripheral to the majority of the electorate. Fair enough.

The federal anti-corruption body that is so obviously needed for the broadest good, since political misconduct effects the entirety of the population, an ethically clear and relatively simple solution , and one that is so clearly wanted by such a stark majority of the electorate, is another matter entirely.
In their protracted foot-dragging and fudging on this matter. I strongly suspect Labor are merely protecting their own misconducts.

Meanwhile, as the current poisonous levels of corporate influence over public policy continues to occur unchecked, earth raping stupidities (like the Maules creek and Carmichael mines, and all the various expanding CSG wells) will continue to be approved and subsidised with public money, and the destabilisation of the Earth’s climate will continue to accelerate towards seemingly inevitable catastrophe.

Ah well, I’m just another ’empty-headed dingbat screaming ICAC’ (ie; one of the 82.5%)
nurses1968January 28, 2017 at 11:01 pm

Kate Ahearne
January 28, 2017 at 3:40 pm
. “Which are the things you would change if you could?”
not really relevant as I am a single voice but at a pinch I’d say Centrelink payment increases with emphasis on Newstart,introduction of the MRRT {again} and guaranteed protection of Medicare,but I’m sure if you asked the same question of every member you would get different responses.
That is why concensus WITHIN the ALP will guide policy
silkwormJanuary 29, 2017 at 1:13 am

There are too many within the ALP who, if a conscience vote on same sex marriage came up, would vote against it, because they are Catholic.

Bill Shorten put Joe Bullock on the Senate ticket ahead of Louise Pratt because he was Catholic.
Trish CorryJanuary 29, 2017 at 6:08 am

Thanks Silkworm for providing another two good examples which support Victoria’s claims in her article. Not only do those who are constantly bagging Labor for the sake of bagging Labor, cherry pick examples, but they often get it wrong and spread untruths along with their cherry picked statements. Trump doesn’t have the ownership of Alternative Facts – those on the left who constantly bag Labor do!

I think it is the MP’s who vote in the house that matter for Marriage equality. So I’m unsure if you mean at grassroots or the MPs. However, on the official Marriage Equality website which tracks votes, in the current parliament we have 1 Labor against and 3 unknown and in the Senate 3 against, 2 unknown. I don’t think that equates with “too many” I think that equates with an over exaggeration of the facts. A convenient untruth.

Regardless, in the next election, Labor will have a binding vote, so even if these four people in the lower house were all against, the vote will be binding. That is the power of the collective way that Labor develops policy through conference.

Bill Shorten did not put Joe Bullock anywhere on any senate ticket. It was a deal with the SDA and Unity (I think) in exchange for support of some other candidate in another seat. I’m sure you can read about it somewhere. But Bill Shorten is not a member of the SDA in WA.. Considering Bill Shorten supports marriage equality, endorsing someone because he is Catholic (which he isn’t) and (presumably against marriage equality) simply does not even make sense. Also Bill converted to Anglican many years ago. Not that he rules by his religion. He hardly mentions religion. Shorten also made a speech to the Australian Christian Lobby in support of marriage equality.

In saying that, what your cherry picking did fail to omit,is that immediately after this occurred with Pratt and the SDA trade off – Shorten and Albo immediately together called for pre-selection reforms for the Senate. I haven’t tracked how that has gone because it is not an area of interest for me – but I’m sure I can find out.

Just a final note on Shorten if you want to define him by his religion, his book “The Common Good” he speaks to this briefly – however, it (his Jesuit values) is all framed in the way of ‘doing good for others’ ‘putting others first’ ‘treating everyone as equal’ etc., etc., I don’t think religion has had some crazy fundamentalist effect on his thinking. However, you appear to want to demonstrate that it does. The interesting question is, why?

Again, thank you for providing another two good examples.
Trish CorryJanuary 29, 2017 at 6:31 am

“There in lies the problem. For the sort of ALP leadership group many want, there would be no need to have to “not shut up”. Up to a point, resistance should be minimal.”

**********

Jimhaz, punitive measures have been adopted as a motivator from both sides for a long time now. Increasingly worse with every Liberal Government. There has only been two terms of Labor Rudd/Gillard since the financially punitive measures were introduced. and they were too busy fighting about other stuff, to my dismay.

However, although Labor supports income management and they currently support the inclusion of financial penalties, just like marriage equality there is scope to improve on this and get this achieved. Please remember that one individual does not define the Labor party. It is a collective. Leadership does not just make the decisions. That would be an authoritarian party view – such as the Liberals. However, I do strongly agree that the Labor leadership could indeed push reforms for the jobsearch framework.

As Dr. John Falzon says – jobsearch is looked at from the wrong mindset. Shorten, in everything he has done so far, is open to various mindsets and I believe many in Labor would be too (personal opinion).

It has been pleasing to me that Shorten and Labor have been attacking the liberals with the narrative of mutual obligation and that the Liberals are not siding with their side of mutual obligation. This shows that Shorten supports financial penalties in a world where work is in abundance. I think this narrative paves the way for a different view in times of high unemployment.

However, my personal stance is I do not agree with financial penalties under any circumstance whatsoever. This is because I have personally spent years studying the intricacies of emotions of and the well being of jobseekers and disadvantaged jobseekers. It is up to voices like mine and voices like John Falzon’s who should push this and show that it is not black and white.

The majority of people in Australia have an much harsher view of jobseekers than what I do. I am not surprised that financial penalties are accepted by the majority within both major parties. When John Falzon said this (about welfare being a personal choice) in his interview on lateline- I literally broke down and cried. My voice of no penalties for jobseekers is not a voice that is shared by many and is not heard voiced a lot. There is currently no strong movement to remove financial penalties or other punitive measures. There needs to be.

This is where the Greens and other parties on the left who take a stance against punitive measures could reach across the table and really work with Labor and push reforms. I have a cynical view on this though, so I won’t air it.

People may be shocked to learn that Senator Rachel Siewert is my champion in this area – the person’s voice I most admire on this topic. My champion in the Australia – John Falzon. My aim for 2017 is to do as much as I can to bring attention to this as an issue.

Here is Falzon’s interview: http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2016/s4541783.htm
RoswellJanuary 29, 2017 at 6:52 am

Although we all might argue amongst ourselves, I think that all Labor supporters deserve lots of credit.

Compare them to Coalition supporters.

In the seven or so years that I’ve been reading blogs – many of them – Coalition supporters are nothing but a cheer squad.

Have you ever seen them do anything but cheer from the sidelines at whatever the Coalition propose or implement? They whistle in support of everything. Every. Single. Thing.

They go wild with excitement over Fraudband. They go wild with excitement over cutting funding to Indigenous services. Over marginalising minority groups. Over the harsh treatment of refugees. Over making the unemployed wait longer for the dole. Over banning the burqa. They are all against same-sex marriage. They all think climate change is crap. They all blame Labor. None can see why people need to flee a war-torn country. None object over the possible sale of Medicare. They all want the ABC muted.

The only thing some of them have complained about was the knifing of Tony Abbott.

Labor supporters, you no doubt have noticed, are the complete opposite. We are able to stand up and make our voices be heard if we oppose something our party stands for. There is nothing wrong with that.

Others do it differently. They are silent but they keep their faith. They agitate for change from within. There is nothing wrong with that either.

We’ve seen both types on this thread, and each think the other is doing it wrong. Personally, I think neither are wrong. It’s just the way we ‘behave’ as Labor supporters. We all have the faith, and that’s what we mustn’t lose sight of.

Labor will win the next election. Labor will win if the supporters do it Victoria’s way, or if they do it with the supporters voicing what they oppose.

And when Labor win, if they don’t govern with the Labor values we expect them to, then no doubt we will all make our voices heard. Unlike Coalition supporters, we don’t duct tape our mouths.
corvus boreusJanuary 29, 2017 at 6:58 am

Same sex marriage; the distraction with traction.
There is seemingly strengthening public support for such, but it seems the plebiscite concept is also broadly favoured, even if it will be a costly exercise, with the results not necessarily binding to the parliamentarians who will ultimately have the final vote on the subject anyway (one day, maybe).

http://www.afr.com/news/politics/election-2016-majority-of-voters-would-say-yes-in-gay-marriage-plebiscite-20160701-gpwg3z

I’d put myself in the 70% who say ‘consenting adults? no objection’, but in the minority who see a plebiscite as a WOFTAM.
Not being same sex inclined, nor disposed to wedlock, it isn’t a personal priority for myself, nor does it seem to be something with critical repercussions, central to competent and decent governance of the broad public for the greatest good.
I think it does, however, serve a certain pragmatic purpose as a symbol to inspire ideological division, and as a convenient political chew-toy to divert attention from other (to my mind, weightier) matters.

I don’t fault Labor for allowing it’s elected representatives a conscience vote on SSM (if/when it happens).
Trish CorryJanuary 29, 2017 at 7:15 am

January 28, 2017 at 8:36 pm Kate Ahern
Kaye, I’m still getting over the Pauline Hanson remark. God knows how close I came to saying something really, really angry. Nasty even.

*********************

Are you delirious or just an inherently nasty person Kate Ahern? Are you one of these commenters who think they should have ownership over who ‘belongs or does not belong’ on AIMN, because you are certainly sounding like you do, in a number of instances now and not just towards me. Heads up – you don’t have the authority over who can comment on here or what they can say – Michael and the moderators do. That is it.

What you are doing here, indirectly addressing me but talking to Kaye, is like one of those nasty women at the checkout who talks really loudly to her friends about the terrible mothering skills of the lady at the next checkout. The aim of this is to belittle the other woman at the checkout. Why include such type of language in an online debate, if your aim is not to belittle others? I say that it is. Maybe, if you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say it.

If needing to suppress nastiness and anger towards another person online because they admitted they would take delight in Hanson being confused with a complex question, steeped in Academia speak, posed to her about the stigma she denies she inflicts upon others (which by the way is not as simplified as what Kaye has made it out to be, thanks!) somehow incites such anger and nastiness towards that person, that you need to suppress it – speaks to more about you than it does about me.

The entire country has been laughing at Hanson’s “please explain” when asked about Xenophobia for twenty years. Chuck us all in the bin!
Kaye LeeJanuary 29, 2017 at 8:57 am

Added to Louise Pratt and Lisa Singh, I thought Gillard’s treatment of Trish Crossin was also unfair, disendorsing a sitting Senator for someone who wasn’t even a member of the party at the time. It smacked of tokenism and didn’t turn out well in the long run. Kimberley Kitching’s appointment would indicate things haven’t improved too much.

Factions are a real problem for me. People are banding together not so much in pursuit of policy as of power.
Kate AhearneJanuary 29, 2017 at 9:18 am

nurses, Thanks for your response to my query. Your voice is not insignificant because it is a single voice. If we don’t use our voices, nobody is going to hear us. That being said, I think a lot would agree with you about the three areas you have mentioned as needing attention, although some might argue that the MRRT horse has bolted. (Not sure if I would agree with them.) But whether that’s true or not, there is a great big black hole in policy about mining, including fracking and corporate responsibility for the environment. I’d love to see Labor get their teeth right into that, particularly as the LNP will not. As for Newstart, yes. And it’s interesting that the three areas you have mentioned are areas that both sides of politics could work on for all our sakes.
Kaye LeeJanuary 29, 2017 at 9:31 am

I agree the kowtowing to the mining industry must stop, which may have been one of the reasons Lisa Singh was treated so shabbily.

“Lisa Singh, Tasmanian senator and shadow parliamentary secretary for the environment, has signed the “pollution free politics pledge”, forcing Opposition Leader Bill Shorten to restate that Labor was not considering ending the diesel fuel rebate available to miners and farmers.

Asked on Wednesday about mining subsidies, Mr Shorten, who was in Brisbane to pledge $100 million for community “solar power hubs”, was emphatic: “We will keep the diesel fuel rebate for mining companies.”

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2016/another-labor-mp-breaks-ranks-with-bill-shorten-on-fossil-fuel-subsidies-and-mining-donations-20160601-gp8tfe.html

If you have a policy of 50% renewables by 2030, this makes no sense, particularly when there is a growing international movement to scrap the subsidies and in light of the revelations of aggressive tax avoidance by mining companies.

The good, the bad and the ugly: Fossil fuel subsidies at the Paris climate talks
Kate AhearneJanuary 29, 2017 at 10:04 am

Trish, I’ll just make a couple of points about this. ‘I’d love to ask Pauline Hanson “From the perspective of symbolic interactionism, what are your observations of the emotional affect individuals and minority groups within society experience as they respond to your nationalistic narrative? and how do you believe you have shaped this new world?”

hahah her face would be a crack up.’

I found this remark particularly nasty. Kaye pointed out to you earlier that if you genuinely wanted an answer, you could have asked your question in plain English. It’s not a complex question, it’s a show-off, put-down question that you would put to a person who has not had all the advantages of a higher education that you have had. She almost certainly wouldn’t understand your question (and quite frankly, with all the advantages of my own higher education, I didn’t understand it too well either. Had to consult Professor Google about ‘symbolic interactionism’). So what would be your point in putting your question to Pauline Hanson? You asked me, ‘Why include such type of language in an online debate, if your aim is not to belittle others?’ I’ll send that right back at you,Trish. Why use ‘such type of language’ in your question to Pauline Hanson, if your aim is not to belittle her? What sort of person would take cruel delight in baffling someone who has not had the opportunities that you have had, because she does not speak the same academic language? What would make you any different to Pauline Hanson if you did that? Pauline doesn’t need to be belittled, she’s perfectly capable of belittling herself any time she opens her mouth. You wouldn’t be showing her up as a ‘dickhead’ because you’d be a ‘dickhead’ yourself, a ‘dickhead’ who takes delight in wounding and belittling others.

You say I remind you of that nasty loud-mouthed woman at the checkout. The first image that came to my mind when I read your Pauline Hanson remarks was of a playground bully.

And Trish, when I’m speaking to you, I address you as Trish. When I’m speaking to Kaye, I address her as Kaye.
Trish CorryJanuary 29, 2017 at 10:43 am

Kate – I stand by my comments. I’ll report anything I see from you, using passive aggressive tactics, trying to antagonise people every time I see it. That sort of behaviour does not need to occur on here. If you don’t do it. I won’t need to report it.

You are misconstruing the entire thing altogether. It was a conversation between me and Kaye and she said she spoke as a mother and a teacher. I listed a range of things that inform my view (see below).

Then Kaye said: “Things like lived experience, phenomenology, constructed meaning and emotional contagion, symbolic interactionism inform my view.” Is there anyone for whom that doesn’t apply?

I disagreed. As there are many types of thinkers in the world and also the framework of ethics also informs people. I then made up a very long complex sentence using sociology/org behaviour and org psych academic speak to prove a point (that not everyone thinks in the terms I listed), in what I would describe as a nerd joke. (Like other nerds get it!) Which was:

“I’d love to ask Pauline Hanson “From the perspective of symbolic interactionism, what are your observations of the emotional affect individuals and minority groups within society experience as they respond to your nationalistic narrative? and how do you believe you have shaped this new world?”

I scoffed at the thought of Hanson’s face if asked that. Because although she portrays herself as an authority on everything – she is anything but. I still stand by that I would take pleasure in absolutely anything that made that women look stupid or anything that put her in a bad light, because she is a danger to this country. We do not need to display decorum when discussing her, surely?

Then in the spirit of AIMN commentary, this has now turned into some type of analysis of the value of that question. Whether we could ask it more simply etc., etc. How ridiculous. Really. How silly. when it was used to demonstrate a point in a conversation between two people about whether a range of sociology/org behaviour theories underpin the thoughts of everyone.

Then you openly commented to someone else (about the person (me) who made the statement) how you had to hold back your anger because of this. Over-dramatic, passive aggressive and completely not necessary.

if I’m a playground bully on this, I suggest you better start calling over 90% of the house holds in Australia to rouse on them, because “Please Explain” is not a famous phrase for no reason. Neither is “I don’t like it” You might want to start with Pauline Pantsdown. Her first record about Hanson (now banned) was “I’m a backdoor man”

To insist we must display all proper measures of decorum when it comes to Hanson is a joke right?

who are you? The cyber police? or Dorrie Evans? or James Ashby?
Kate AhearneJanuary 29, 2017 at 10:44 am

Trish, I’ve just worked out why you’ve been thinking I’m talking to you when I’m addressing Kaye. It’s because on the previous page I’ve clicked Reply instead of Comments. Reply takes you to the bottom of the Comments section, whereas Comments takes you to the top. I like to go to the bottom, especially when there have been lots of comments, as there are on this thread at the moment – 144. Perhaps you’d better report me for that, too.
Trish CorryJanuary 29, 2017 at 10:49 am

No Kate. That is not it at all and you know it isn’t. I’m moving to another thread. I’m done engaging on this one.
RoswellJanuary 29, 2017 at 11:01 am

Like I said, Labor will win the next election. But they need us all to help them get there.

I’m as guilty as anybody for attacking people – an action I regret – but from this moment on I fight for what is right. What the conservatives want to do is destroy those rights.

Everyone here is on the same team. Let’s play as a team.
Kate AhearneJanuary 29, 2017 at 11:14 am

Roswell, Yes, let’s.
RoswellJanuary 29, 2017 at 11:17 am

Kate, we’re all guilty.
Kaye LeeJanuary 29, 2017 at 11:19 am

Being on the team means looking at what you did wrong and trying to fix it. Too often, criticism of Labor is deflected by “but the other guy is worse”. That is unquestionably true but Labor should be able to listen to concerns and either address them or explain why they have taken their chosen path. It is disappointing that anyone who questions their actions is branded almost as a traitor.
Kate AhearneJanuary 29, 2017 at 11:22 am

Roswell, Kaye, Thanks to both of you for the sanity.
Deanna JonesJanuary 29, 2017 at 11:38 am

Yay for solidarity. The overlords want us to fight amongst ourselves, it suits them just right.

I watched Rogue One the other night and there is in it a former Imperial droid, K2, who has been re-programmed and now fights on the side of the Rebellion. Thinking about Ms Hansen, if she were to become educated and informed she’d make a cracker of a feminist. Come over from the dark side, Pauline!
silkwormJanuary 29, 2017 at 11:50 am

“I’m moving to another thread. I’m done engaging on this one.”

Please don’t.
Kate AhearneJanuary 29, 2017 at 11:57 am

There is a difference between infighting and the sort of criticism that is offered in a constructive spirit. I think it is vital that we make this distinction.
RhondaJanuary 29, 2017 at 2:47 pm

I need a couple of Panadol now rxx
nurses1968January 29, 2017 at 4:48 pm

Roswell
” Labor will win the next election”
Not certain about that,
I don’t get the internal polling that I used to but stuff keeps coming for the boss and I sneak a peep.
Labor are ahead in polls but not in seats necessary for them to win Government.
The polls show increases in typically Labor seats but those on the 1-2% margin for the Liberals and seats like Duttons remain just out of reach and in some cases a slight increase for the Libs

Donald Trump's quick trip to absolute dictatorship

Arrest Warrants from The Hague: The ICC, Netanyahu…

Intelligence Isn't Everything But It Should Be SOMETHING!

Oxfam reaction to Australia’s pledge to the fund…

Plan International Australia statement on COP29: “A devastating…

A Duty to Warn

Democracy - Is It Worth The Fight?

Fencing the Ocean: Australia’s Social Media Safety Bill

Progressives Don’t Need a New Narrative

Like this:

Related Articles

157 comments

Leave a Reply

Union calls for Julie Bishop to be sacked from ANU…

Angry America

Share this:

Like this:

Related Articles

157 comments

Leave a Reply