Karnal wrote on Oct 20^th, 2015 at 10:15am:


Much of this is identical with the Liberal party though and here is my issue, massive double standards, why aren't the Liberals held to any scrutiny? Why should Liberals "default" have Government when they are literally the party of no policies and no ideas? Howard was a lost decade, Abbott did so much damage he likely sabotaged Australian growth for a decade or more.

As poo as Labor is, they are still a million times better than the Liberals, I mean, whats Turnbulls big policy ideas? New copper, privatized medicare, cutting penalty rates and giving the Nationals Environmental control  .

Or everyone could do the smart thing and vote Green.

Dnarever wrote on Oct 20^th, 2015 at 10:56am:


That would be impossible. Abbott's tendency was to orient himself towards the lunar right - Liberal Party factions that include, in NSW, the Uglies and the Religious Right. In popular terms, this was suicide, but Abbott always believed he could get away with it with help from talkback radio and News Ltd.

In political terms, it meant he needed to be economically dry, but socially conservative. Abbott needed to prove himself, so he took to the extreme in both camps. His first budget avoided any cuts to welfare for the rich, including super tax concessions and negative gearing. He aimed every budget saving at those on lower incomes, or even no incomes (such as making the unemployed wait 6 months for the dole). Even Hockey and Cormann, both economic dries, were rolled when they tried to aim cuts at the rich.

Abbott now calls his first budget "bold and brave", but it was only "bold" in its cuts to the poor. Abbott needed the business groups on side. They formed half of his political support in the Libs.

The other half were the social conservatives: monarchists, the Religious Right, and those alleged capital C Conservatives cheer-led by the News Ltd columnists, Bolt and Divine. Again, Abbott went to the extreme: knighting Prince Phillip, holding back gay marriage, and begging the US to bomb Syria so Australia could help out a bit. Abbott spent his time waging petty wars on the right's enemies and creating policies for its friends. Human rights and unions were among the enemies. The backflipped policy of changing the Racial Discrimination Act was all about vindicating Andrew Bolt, a friend. It was a policy early in Abbott's term, designed as a thank you to News Ltd for helping Abbott win the election.

Most of Abbott policies failed because they were extremist and unpopular. Most of his ideas failed to get traction for the same reason. Abbott appealed to an electoral minority. By clinging on to his support base, he alienated the electorate. The failure of this strategy was inevitable. However, Abbott also failed to keep his support base. By keeping Peta Credlin, he restricted their access. Abbott failed in all areas: policy, popularity, leadership and simple administration. Good government didn't have a chance.

Turnbull has no such problem. His pitch for challenging Abbott was about returning to the political centre. Where Abbott was on the fringe, Turnbull is in the mainstream. Where Abbott was loathed, Turnbull is popular with the voters. Where Abbott refused to communicate his policies and ideas, you can't stop Turnbull talking. Where Abbott alienated those in his own party, Turnbull has recruited Arthur Sinodinos to run a Howard-style inclusive leadership. Where Abbott's office were control freaks, by all accounts Turnbull delegates to his ministers and defers to cabinet.

So far, this is what voters have worked out (or it's what we're told). Turnbull is claiming the political centre - the space held by Labor. If he sticks to this strategy, Labor won't have a leg to stand on.

Karnal wrote on Oct 20^th, 2015 at 12:02pm:


Where I think Turnbull will be worse is that he will be able to sell otherwise unsellable ideas, if the Libs win the next election, its a basically a complete certainty penalty rates are gone, Unis and social services will be deregulated and the NBN half-assed rolled out then shitcanned half way through.

Abbott couldn't sell these ideas, but the rhetoric coming from the Libs currently is already selling up these ideas, Simon Birmingham was on RN talking about how great and successful TAFE deregulation is using the exact same rhetroic as Turnbull (Innovative, competitive) which is a blantant ramp up to Uni deregulation after the next election, Morrison is already going around flagging privatization of hospitals and services again with "innovation" and "competitiveness".

It was hilarious hearing Turnbull say we should copy the ideas of New Zealand, when Turnbull destroyed the NBN while NZ is in the final leg of a national FTTP rollout.

We were saved by Abbotts incompetence, Turnbull is a good salesman + the media is 100% on his side, this is why Turnbull will be worse.

Nausicaa wrote on Oct 20^th, 2015 at 11:54am:


The way Labor conferences and the factional system works is not identical to the Libs. Sure, the Libs branch stack and are welded to their interest groups too, but the unions have an enormous structural power base within the ALP. They vote for policy at national conferences. They vote in leadership ballots. Through the factions, they control preselection. In 2010, they were instrumental in deposing a popularly-elected first-term PM.

Rudd stood outside the factions, and he did nothing to cultivate them. He relied on the support of Gillard, and he held the leadership through her numbers. When the NSW and Victorian Right made the decision to join forces with the Left and back Gillard, Rudd was history.

After the fallout of the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd fiasco, Labor has returned to form. The rise of Shorten and Albanese as rival leaders is solely factional. Rudd's reforms to the party did not go far enough. The 50-50 split between members and the national caucus to vote in leaders is still subject to factional control. Shorten is not there because of his political experience or any inherent skills in communication or policy formation, he's there because he's a factional broker.

Labor is still operating under a Cold War factional system that is completely at odds with modern forms of consensus and decision making. At Labor Party conferences, delegates still come in crowing about the numbers they "represent". An AWU or CMFEU delegate claims to represent hundreds of thousands of workers with a form of authority totally divorced from reality.

This represents a time when workers had to join the union to keep their jobs, and as a member of that union, were told how to vote. Many were required to join the ALP itself, and were told which delegates to vote for. The unions controlled vast segments of the population, and worked in tandem with the ALP. The system was kept together by fixers, usually the secretaries of state Labor branches or big trade unions. These power-brokers were factional overlords. They managed the votes at state and national conferences, they managed three levels of government, and they even managed local services in strongly held Labor electorates. They put people in jobs and they approved development. They influenced friendly magistrates and high ranking police, and they got things done.

This system worked in industrial, working class areas, and it's why the ALP was established. The unions were the sword, the Labor Party was the shield. Today, this system represents very few. The ALP has become little more than a career path for those left in the system. Whitlam, and then Hawke/Keating tried to change this model, but they left it intact.

Shorten represents this model's comeback. In Shorten, the faceless men now have a face, but the only people they "represent" is themselves.

Ban Them