Labor Has Lost Its Way: (Bob) Brown

[Matilda]

Labor should move back to humanitarian policies, Greens leader Bob Brown says.

(snip)

"I think the opposition has lost its way and I think it's going to get worse," Senator Brown said.

"The indications are that the opposition thinks if it moves to the right it will do better.

No, it needs to move back to the humanitarian politics that Labor once stood for and it easily
could."

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/labor-has-lost-its-way-brown/2006/03/02/1141191759393.html


Of course Bob Brown has his own agenda, but I think what he's saying is all too true. Polls seem
to indicate that people will continue to give their vote to Howard, even though few like him. Even
for those who are unhappy with Howard's lying and mean-spirited ways, why would they vote for
catch-up Kim, who will give them more of the same?

Howard is going to win the next election, and he only has to string out the time between the next
two elections and he'll pass Menzies' record of 17 years in office. And much of that is thanks to
the Labor Party.

They're so terrified of moving to the Left of politics, they even preferenced Families First at the
last election, when it's clear to you and me that grass-roots Labor supporters would see their
natural allies as the Greens.

Labor's current branch-stacking and pre-selection rorts in Victoria show clearly that they know they
have to change their line-up, but all of the so-called new blood appears to be coming from the right-
wing factions of the party. It seems that control of the party machine is more important to them
than winning elections.

John Howard could well be leader of this country in ten years' time - it's too horrible to
contemplate.

[PinkUnicorn]

1. Not sure

While (sadly) jackboot will probably get in next election I don't know about Johnny lasting another 7 years. Already federal services are held together by string and a prayer, there's red ink as far as they eye can see, the housing bubble is ever growing and prices are astronomical, health availability is plummeting, CSIRO emasculated, we're selling everything that isn't nailed down, etc. I suspect he'll do what he's always done and thats jump ship leaving someone else to carry the can, while he basks in his stolen glory and flogs his 'glorious legacy'. While he would no doubt love to self masturbate over the though he out did his idol, I don't think circumstances will allow it. A big factor would be if the Nationals wake up and realise they're just they're to pad the numbers, which regrettably based on past experience they wont.

As for labour...they're useless. A fat spineless blowhard as a leader, factions busy shooting each other in the foot, fossils pining for the good old days, and a completely lackluster cabinet. Instead of a meriotc-racy its a mediocre-racy. To use Python - they wouldn't 'zoom' if you put 4000 volts through them.

The Greens may be interesting, but I am somewhat wary. Various past elections have seen them more playing for power, similar to independents, rather than having a stance. My other concern is that a sudden influx of greens will result in the election of what I call 'Space Greenies' - so far off the planet in their ideas they are an object of ridicule instead of serving a solid purpose. As for labour fearing them and playing preferences, they have good reason to - Labour know they are seen as incompetent morons so they will do anything to try and protect their 'traditional' base hence direct preference to what they think of as 'no hope' parties so as to avoid giving votes to Liberal friendly parties or dividing their vote. Unfortunately this backfired with Family First.

The religious nutters - I hope they are only a passing fad, but I suspect the Libs will try to get more of them by preference voting and other shenanigans. They're used to be a time they were considered nut jobs, now they are considered a 'legitimate party'. The fact that labour is so soft that they cant take a stand for fear of being seen un-Australian' doesn't help, and they have seen the effect pandering to religious nuts can achieve (courtesy of US TV). Welcome to the United States of Australia.

The Democrats are dead, and just haven't realised it yet. The independents one can't tell with. What would be interesting is if One Nation tried to make a comeback - In the current 'Fear fear fear, terra terra' environment stirred up by Jackboot they would make a killing causing Johnny to vet himself even though he practically swiped every one of Hanson's policies.

[gemini_liberal]

2. I would prefer to hear this from somebody in the Labor party

I know it'd give the image of a divided party or whatever, but then it would actually look like a valid criticism. Problem with Senator Brown saying this is, as valid as it is, it is a partisan attack and will easily be dismissed as one. I give absolute kudos to the Greens and will support their cause and hope they make a difference in this country, however my long term attention will be to fix the only viable left of centre party we have. I believe for the ALP to survive and thrive it needs to make some radical changes to itself. I'd love to list them all, but it'd take all night. It needs to be a people's party - one with social democratic as well as socially progressive policies - however, I believe moderates have a right to be in the party too. I dislike factions controlling things in it, and believe it should be more democratically run.

I also think it's a tad unfair to say that a Beazley government would be the same as the Howard government. A Costello government maybe, but not the Howard government. I dislike Kim Beazley and think he's a little too right wing and inept to lead the Labor Party, however John Howard is a radical, ultra-conservative nutjob who is just evil - Kim Beazley is Che Guevara compared to him! Even Bob Carr is progressive compared to the evil one!

[Matilda]

3. We heard it from Mark Latham in spades!

If only he had remained in the parliament and attacked from a strong position - he would have been
booted out as leader for sure, but his words would have had some weight, and he might eventually
have been seen as a Labor hero, instead of a whining petulant brat.

I'm particularly concerned with Kim's record on anti-terrorist legislation, and on human rights.
He didn't speak out about Tampa, and had he done so he may still have lost the election because of
the climate at the time, but he would have some moral authority and given those who were disturbed
at Howard's breaking international maritime law somewhere to go. But Kim kept silent, as he did
about the detention centres, and the incarceration of women and children. Not a peep from him.

He's also backed all Howard's anti-terror legislation to the hilt, and there's little doubt that
our laws now are among the most severe in the world. The only thing Labor did was to change the
age at which children can be interrogated without their parents' knowledge or presence of a lawyer
from 10 to 14. BFD. And he's also backing Howard's new legislation, brought in quietly just before
Parliament recessed at Christmas and which gives the ADF new powers to act against the civilian
population, including wider powers to "shoot to kill" civilians. Kim's only comment was that it
should have been brought in sooner than it was. He certainly can't change anything with Howard's
Senate majority, but he could kick up a big fuss.

I agree that the Greens are unlikely ever to become a major player in this country, and that has
something to do with the fact that the media seldom publish what they have to say on anything. But
they are currently the only party defending our liberties and human rights. Nothing would change
if Beazley were PM. We'd still be backing Bush all the way.

[gemini_liberal]

4. I think you misunderstood my point

Firstly, I am aware that Latham said it ad nausiem - but that was dismissed as sour grapes. I realise their are also other Labor figures making statements, my point was more that change is only gonna come from within.

As for my other comment, I wasn't defending Kim Beazley so much as reminding that Howard isn't just your average centre-right leader or something. He is possibly the most right wing leader in the world at the moment - even further to the right than Bush - if Howard had his way, this country would be a barren wasteland save the citadels where the rich live and profit over every resource plundered and individual exploited. He is a very horrible man and dismissing it all as "both parties are the same" gives Howard a free pass.

Sorry if I made it sound like I was attacking your points or calling you wrong. :)

[Matilda]

5. I take your point about Howard -

that's one of the things that's so depressing. I don't think anybody really likes him - without
exception, people I know who admit to voting for him did so for one reason - economics. They have
a mortgage and/or shares, and they're doing very nicely thank you, so they don't care that he's
a proven liar, mean-spirited and small of soul, that he's attacking the people on the lowest rungs
of the economic ladder to benefit the rich. As long as he's delivering a strong economy, they'll
go with him. Nobody gives a damn about ethics, morality or justice any more, it's only the bottom
line that counts.

I don't believe that Beazley would be as nasty as Howard and he'd have to deliver something to
Labor's traditional base, but while he's so solidly behind Howard on issues like foreign policy
and security even while our basic rights are being taken away, where do you go for change? Many
people are unhappy about the attacks on civil liberties, but they know nothing will be different
under Beazley, and while the Greens could conceivably hold balance of power in the Senate, they
won't ever make government.

And I don't think anybody is going to rock the Labor boat right now - I suspect that after Latham's
book and subsequent mud-slinging, they've all been told to pull their heads in. But watching Kim
in Parliament is depressing - what he has to say is often quite good when you read it in print, but
he waffles so much, and huffs and puffs and never makes a dent in Howard's armour. And you just
know that he's not going to do it.

[gemini_liberal]

6. Yeah I know how you feel

I understood why the took Kim back on board, they felt they needed an established leader, but it is depressing when Howard's mob do something radical and controversial and all Kim has to say is "they'll get our support" or "it doesn't go far enough." Come next election, my lower house 1 vote will probably go to the Green candidate, but I will still put Labor over the coalition. I just want Howard to fuck off. It's not the fact that the coalition is in power that pisses me off, it's the fact that John Howard just won't go away - he's always there. I know for a fact no matter how well Labor may be doing in the polls, six months prior to Howard calling the election, he'll pull out his bullshit tricks and con his way into power again. It's just really depressing. I would like to see them gone of course, but if they return, Kim has to go - for good. If Labor give him another chance, they are the biggest lot of idiots in the world! Part of my would like to see a landslide against Labor, just so they can clean house (just like what happens to both parties here in SA on a regular basis) but then, I don't want to see the Sky News type headline of "It's official: Australia thinks John Howard is God's gift to mankind." I dunno. Now I have gone and made myself depressed. Ha.