Labor confirm moral cowardice, pander to bigots

[weemadando]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-12-03/l ... ge/3710828

At least the Liberal party are honest about being a pack of big business stooges and slaves to bigotry.

I want to believe that this will blow back on them next election, but I know it won't. As long as they keep being tough on brown people and nice to big business.

You know what would have helped your surplus Swannie? That mining tax and the rest of the Henry reforms. But instead you're trying to squeeze more blood from a stone. Because after already merging half a dozen departments and asking for a further 4% efficiency dividend (on top of the already demanded 2.5%) in this financial year is a much more realistic way of balancing that budget.

[mr friendly guy]

You know, I am most probably going to put third party come next Federal election. But don't worry guys with the I will help the greater Evil get into power. This is Australia with a preferential voting system, so chances are my vote ends up with labour anyway, just not my primary vote. So we get the best of both worlds.

[Terralthra]

Would it have killed you to quote some text from the article?

[HMS Sophia]

Yeah I spent a couple of moments worrying you were talking about UK's labour party
Is the Australian system similar to the British system, with the two houses? Is the labour party similar to ours?

[weemadando]

Would it have killed you to quote some text from the article?

Was on mobile.

Also, have some more white whine.

[Terralthra]

Would it have killed you to quote some text from the article?

Was on mobile.

Also, have some more white whine.

Posting quotes or excerpts from the source is part of the board rules, genius.

[Carinthium]

Perhaps it is at least worth pointing out that the Labour government is very unstable at the moment- if they had tried to force the entire Party to vote for gay marriage:
A- Tony Abbot goes on the attack for opressing the religious members
B- Several members in the House and Senate could potentially defect to the Liberal Party or simply vote against the bill

[Alkaloid]

Perhaps it is at least worth pointing out that the Labour government is very unstable at the moment- if they had tried to force the entire Party to vote for gay marriage:
A- Tony Abbot goes on the attack for opressing the religious members
B- Several members in the House and Senate could potentially defect to the Liberal Party or simply vote against the bill

Except that Labor are so far behind in the polls that playing conservative will just mean they loose the next election by the current margin if not larger. The recent gains they have made have come because they have forced through or cleverly politicked through controversial and bold (by the standards of Australian politics) policies and reforms against the oppositions wishes and looked more like a government and less like a wilted cabbage in a fancy hat as a result. They have to go on the offensive, and this was a golden opportunity to do it that they blew. The Labor right can't afford to cross the floor because that will quite possibly tank the government and they seriously risk not being reelected if there is an election called now, Abbot is starting to wear himself out, and the only way to attack the government not having the conscience vote is the old 'marriage is between a man and a woman' spiel, and most people don't give a shit about that, and the ones that do are likely rusted on lib voters anyway, so the risks of both those tings are pretty negligible. Cowardice and an unwillingness to risk making things worse in a attempt to make them better are really the only explanations here.

[Carinthium]

If Tony Abbot has any sense, he'll offer Labor members posistions in the Liberal party of equivilant seniority on the basis that the Labor party is attacking their freedom of conscience- a variant on this line should also be effective at persuading neutrals (it looks opressive to forbid people from voting with their conscience). Combined with religious pressure on the minority of Labour MPs of religious right affiliations, and Labour is in a tight posistion just getting the bill through.

Do you actually have statistics on whether or not people 'give a shit' about the nature of marriage, and the strength of emotions thereof? The question of how many actually support it (which is a different question) basically comes down to the reliability of Galaxy Polls ordered for gay rights groups.

[Alkaloid]

You have to remember that Abbot is in a precarious position as well. Personally he is massively disliked, and only beat Turnbull for party leadership by one vote. Promoting a whole bunch of Labor members over people who have been Liberal members for years may well lose him the leadership, assuming that Labor members want to defect at all, because there are more issues than gay marriage in politics.

As for more stats, apart from galaxy polls, which you have issues with, the best I can find for now is this, which has links to a whole bunch of polls not run by Australian Marriage Equality or gay rights groups that show gay marriage is generally supported, plus a more detailed galaxy poll. It is on the AME website though, so you might have issues with that too, I don't know.

[Carinthium]

I agree that the only Labor members who might defect are their extreme conservative wing- the objective would be to get just one, maybe two M.Ps to defect (major assets in and of themselves). For extreme conservatives, gay marriage is an important enough issue that they could defect. (Cardinal Pell would also likely be willing to put pressure on the Catholics) Getting them to defy the Labour party would ensure they were kicked out, which would be enough to cause damage.

I concede on the stats issue, though- looking at the evidence, it seems you're right.

[Alkaloid]

I agree that the only Labor members who might defect are their extreme conservative wing- the objective would be to get just one, maybe two M.Ps to defect (major assets in and of themselves). For extreme conservatives, gay marriage is an important enough issue that they could defect. (Cardinal Pell would also likely be willing to put pressure on the Catholics)

Those one or two people defecting could be enough to tank Abbots leadership though. There are some pretty conservative folks in the ALP, true, but they would almost certainly tank their own chances of reelection by outright defection, because they would then have to defeat the current Lib candidate for their electorate in preselection and then the Labor candidate in the election itself, and they are savvy enough to know it. (betrayal and backstabbing are a big no no right now, particularly for Labor)

Getting them to defy the Labor party would ensure they were kicked out, which would be enough to cause damage.

People cross the floor without being kicked out of their party all the time. It would hurt Labor, and if they were in a better position to actually lose some members votes permanently they might, but as it stands now they would just lump it, remember who crossed the floor and move on.

[Carinthium]

1- If Abbott were to use the freedom of conscience argument combined with political pragmatism, he could make the Liberals accept the candidates.
2- The Australian Labor Party has a policy that any candidate who crosses the floor is kicked out.

[Alkaloid]

1- If Abbott were to use the freedom of conscience argument combined with political pragmatism, he could make the Liberals accept the candidates.

Possibly, but Turnbull or Hockey could use that to take leadership of the party. It's a tossup between taking Labor down further and potentially weakening his own position within the party or doing nothing. And at this stage Labor are far enough down that he doesn't need to drop them further. You could argue that it would be worth it to tank their recovery, but to be honest that may just be a blip on the way down, and I don't see him trying anything in that vein until we know that they are recovering, it's just too risky

2- The Australian Labor Party has a policy that any candidate who crosses the floor is kicked out.

I had actually forgotten about that, but I don't see them sticking to that policy if it will force an election that will lose them government.

[Rogue 9]

2- The Australian Labor Party has a policy that any candidate who crosses the floor is kicked out.

Might I just say that this is fucking ridiculous?

[Alkaloid]

You can, and I won't say you're wrong. That said, the strong party system does mean the parliament actually functions, unlike say, Italy, where there is little control and its flat out hard to get shit done. I don't know which is better, really.

[Rogue 9]

Yes, but why bother with Parliament? You might as well tally up the votes every election, and the leader of whichever party got more could just run the show himself without the bother; Parliament is superfluous if the members of it must do what the boss says anyway; they're no more than glorified counters.

[Alkaloid]

There are actually legit third parties in Australia, and a minority government that relies on them and independents to pass legislation. It doesn't always work out like that, true, in fact it's pretty rare, but if they kick someone out of the party they retain their seat and can continue to vote, they just become independents. In theory, if a Labor member wanted badly enough to vote against the party they could, they just have to run against a new labor candidate in the next election. Like I said, I'm not really sure which is better, chaos or an over reliance on the party system, I can see arguments for both.

[Stark]

I don't think Rogue 9 really understands what he's talking about. The idea that a single person in a party sets policy is laughable, especially in the totally broken Labor party. The idea of total Labor solidarity and loyalty is a pretty bemusing one, as well.

[Alkaloid]

Actually, yeah, bear in mind that in Aus it's the party that's elected to govern, not the person, and the party can elect it's own leader whenever they choose, a federal election doesn't have to be called, so if the party doesn't like what the boss says, they can fire them. Happened twice recently, in opposition and in government, and came close to tanking the party both times, but they got through it. Just.

[Stark]

I wouldn't necessarily call choosing Abbott over Turnbull 'getting through it'. Shit, if Turnbull was in charge there's no way anyone I know would vote Labor, but with a homophobic, bible-pounding actual retard in charge, its a different story.

Then again, Labor is pretty fucked too, and even Keating is ruling them.

[Carinthium]

Possibly, but Turnbull or Hockey could use that to take leadership of the party. It's a tossup between taking Labor down further and potentially weakening his own position within the party or doing nothing. And at this stage Labor are far enough down that he doesn't need to drop them further. You could argue that it would be worth it to tank their recovery, but to be honest that may just be a blip on the way down, and I don't see him trying anything in that vein until we know that they are recovering, it's just too risky

1- Your policy has Labor rebuilding it's strength, which Abbot will want to stop.
2- Tony Abbot may be a politician, but by politician's standards he has a conscience. He did offer to support Joe Hockey if he would oppose climate change. (indicating that to him policies are more important then ambitions) Judging from his rhethoric, he would see what Labor is doing as gravely morally wrong

I had actually forgotten about that, but I don't see them sticking to that policy if it will force an election that will lose them government.

Even if they don't, it's a clear win for Abbot- Labor appears weak and divided.

[Alkaloid]

I wouldn't necessarily call choosing Abbott over Turnbull 'getting through it'. Shit, if Turnbull was in charge there's no way anyone I know would vote Labor, but with a homophobic, bible-pounding actual retard in charge, its a different story.

Then again, Labor is pretty fucked too, and even Keating is ruling them.

Yeah. I meant survived, not remained a political entity anyone but frothing nationalists and fundamentalists respect.

You gotta love the irony, though. If Abbott hadn't replaced Turnbull, then Rudd's carbon tax would have gone through, which would have meant his popularity wouldn't have crashed like it did, which would mean Labor would have won the last election pretty comfortably, but instead they scraped through in a contest against Abbott that they would have lost to Turnbull in a landslide.

1- Your policy has Labor rebuilding it's strength, which Abbot will want to stop.

Want to, yes, but he is in a position that he can afford to let Labor score some points if he has to.

2- Tony Abbot may be a politician, but by politician's standards he has a conscience. He did offer to support Joe Hockey if he would oppose climate change. (indicating that to him policies are more important then ambitions) Judging from his rhethoric, he would see what Labor is doing as gravely morally wrong

Yep, which is why when labor put forward laws to allow them to process asylum seekers offshore, a policy the coalition (including Abbott) has been espousing since Howard, the coalition voted with them to ensure it went through. Wait, no, that's not what they did at all, they let labor look foolish because it was politically expedient, and they will continue to do so, particularly under Tony '''the only thing I wouldn't do is sell my arse - but I'd have to give serious thought to it'' Abbott.

Even if they don't, it's a clear win for Abbot- Labor appears weak and divided.

I agree, but I just don't see any labor members defecting like that, the situation being what it is there's no benefit.

[Stark]

Does Tony Abbott 'have a conscience' or is he just a huge bigot? Maybe he's just trying to win the 'worse than Howard' award.

[Carinthium]

Yep, which is why when labor put forward laws to allow them to process asylum seekers offshore, a policy the coalition (including Abbott) has been espousing since Howard, the coalition voted with them to ensure it went through. Wait, no, that's not what they did at all, they let labor look foolish because it was politically expedient, and they will continue to do so, particularly under Tony '''the only thing I wouldn't do is sell my arse - but I'd have to give serious thought to it'' Abbott.

Did you actually look at Abbott's arguments for why he didn't? I think they speak for themselves.

I agree, but I just don't see any labor members defecting like that, the situation being what it is there's no benefit.

What about their own consciences? If desperate, Tony could probably (via the Cardinal) persuade the Pope to excommunicate any Catholics who voted for it. (on the argument that it was necessary to prevent the bill getting through)

Does Tony Abbott 'have a conscience' or is he just a huge bigot? Maybe he's just trying to win the 'worse than Howard' award.

A person can have a conscience and do what most people here would consider henious things BECAUSE OF it, when it conforms with their values (examples include Hitler focusing on exterminating Jews when the strategically expedient course was to focus on Russia, many knights and Kings going on Crusade (King Richard III sold off a lot for his attempt), parents giving up their children as sacrifices). That is what I am arguing Tony Abbott would do.