View Full Version : Labor Party, are they still blue-collar?
clucas91
4 Jul 2002, 16:23
I cannot think of a Labor leader/Prime Minister that did not have a strong working class background or Union involvement.
I don't think that Dr. Herbert Evatt did, nor did Gough Whitlam.
Docker_Brat
4 Jul 2002, 17:33
RJ Hawke like to present himself as such but in reality was a Rhodes Scholar. Hardly the working class man.
clucas91
4 Jul 2002, 17:38
Originally posted by Docker_Brat
RJ Hawke like to present himself as such but in reality was a Rhodes Scholar. Hardly the working class man.
I knew Hawke had strong Union connection, but a Rhodes Scholar? Hahahahaha! I believe that. :eek: :cool:
Bob's got the world record for fastest drinker....2 pints of beer in 12 seconds.
Surely that counts for something!
Originally posted by Docker_Brat
RJ Hawke like to present himself as such but in reality was a Rhodes Scholar. Hardly the working class man.
In direct contrast to Keating who was portrayed as (too?) well-educated and lacking touch with the working man (which may be true), despite the fact he left school at 14.
Docker_Brat
4 Jul 2002, 21:57
Originally posted by hilly
In direct contrast to Keating who was portrayed as (too?) well-educated and lacking touch with the working man (which may be true), despite the fact he left school at 14.
Now that is interesting. Paul Keating really was from the working class background, yet was lampooned for his penchant for Italian suits and antique clocks.
Time to invest in a piggery methinks.
Shinboners
4 Jul 2002, 22:28
"We once attracted the cream of the working class. Now we get the dregs of the middle class" - Clyde Cameron.
It sums up the ALP for me.
Vindaloo Mat
5 Jul 2002, 16:35
It reflects a more broader change in society. There was a time when the ALP could hope to attract > 50% + 1 of the vote by appealing to "blue collar", unionized men, as they formed a large part of the popuulation and "working class" women probably voted along similar lines anyway.
This whole segment of Australian society has decreased along with the change in the workforce. Union membership for example is now < 30%...why ??? It is not necessarily because unions are less relevant, more so that unionisation goes with the job not the individual and the proportion of jobs which lend themselves to unionisation is dropping (manufacturing, mining etc).
As a result the ALP do not stand a hope in hell if they pich themselves squarely at the "working class" traditional, male orientated segment of society. They have to become more "right wing" in order to stand a chance of winning. As the nature of the Australian working class has changed sa has the ALP. No-a-days your typical "working class" job is a teacher, or a nurse or....perhaps IT Professionals and the like. People on $50-60,000 and less, with a mortgage etc.
So, the ALP is still working class, although it has changed a lot....but really what has changed is the definition of "working class"
Vindaloo Mat
TigerCraig
5 Jul 2002, 16:42
A lot of traditional "blue collar" Labour voters were turned off by all the republican, land-rights, gay-rights, criminal-rights moves of parts of the ALP. It has now swung back to the right to try & get these people and the 'aspirational' voters back, and will let the basket weavers vote Greens.
That is not the primary problem with the ALP and the fact ehy continue to lose grounf in their heartland. The ALP have moved their policies further right consistently over the past 15 years. The ALP does not do as much as it used to to protect workers rights. The ALP tries to butter up business just as much as the Liberal Party.
The loss of touch with society is not from education but from greed and the loss of ideals. They only want to be re-elected now and gain power. Politicans no longer wish to leave a legacy that will benefit the country.
Yes, Hawke was a Rhodes scholar and may labour politicians are well educated.
The thread asks a pertinant question and IMO harks back to a bygone era. In todays age there is much less demarkation between blue and white collar workers. Team based working structures have become commonplace. In line with this union membership has declined to well under 20% of the population and that is an important statistic because it means that less than 20% of the population controls the labour party who has around 50% of the vote. Take away the majority of that 20% who are in a trade union because they have no choice and then it becomes clear that a very small and mainly undemocratic few control that party.
I therefore think that Creans moves to reduce union power in the Labour party is a good one. Labour needs to be representing blue and white collar interests. The middle ground is also where elections are won. In fact it is doubtful if any person considering themselves to be blue collar/working class would ever vote other than Labour. It is an aweful stigma. They are people trying to do their best and should not be classified in terms close to that of a slave race.
Political parties need to embrace a better alternative to policies they disagree with whilst embracing the majority of policies where there is cross party agreement. As we become a beetter and more educated country more and more people are fed up of opposition parties just disagreeing and voting aginst the government without giving an credible alternative. It happens at Federal level and also at state level. God knows we have a pathetic state labour government in WA but all the opposition does is express unbased negativity, if labour is bad then the liberals are terrible.
The prescription increase is a good case. Sure we all disliked the huge increase but the fact is that costs had increased and there had to be an answer. Costello increased the cost, that is a solution. What I wanted to see was Crean come out with an alternative to the increase such as a 1% increase in the medicare levy, not just a bagging of the government. The same on border protection. Crean says he would do it with air and sea patrols, but where is the costings? How much would we pay for an effective coverage of all these islands? It's clear that the army could handle mainland protection at a fraction of the cost of air and sea so what is Crean suggesting. An ineffective watered down border protection or a 5c increase in tax rates to cover for the boats, planes, personnel and maintenance costs. We just don't know. All we get from any opposition is unqualified negativity and we need to change that.
ian_rocks
8 Jul 2002, 13:51
Labor sucks, If you want a true party for the working class try the PLP (people's labor party I think) or even the CPA :) (but that would be a proletarian party!)
PS- Just because someone is smart doesn't mean they aren't working class remember you cannot have ideas without an environment and the working class environment is best for that because they do it themselves with initiative whilst the upper class don't have too many great ideas because they don't need initiative, they can buy stuff. (A proven theory developed by Hegel known as materialism, or dialectical materialism)
Pessimistic
9 Jul 2002, 13:30
I think the key is to define working class.
If it's factory workers the class is shrinking. If it's people at or near the poverty line then the numbers are increasing alarmingly.
Frodo hinted that the people who see themselves in the middle are pivotal to elections. The thatcher govenment had a political policy of 'stuff the poor' and redistributing wealth to "middle' and 'upper' classes. The had a 20-40-40 rule. The top 20% became wayyy beteer off and the middle 40% became substantually better off. The poorest 40% became much much worse off and were told to get f***** in several different ways. They weren't too happy but the othe 60% always outvoted them.
Eventually the penny dropped with the eletorate and the tories were routed.
Anyway back to the definition. If the ALP and voters saw the 'working class' as those who need to work full time to survive (or would like to) then the base is much broader. It would include most 'white collar' workers too. If labor was seen to represent the interests best then they would never be out of power. all the lobby group influence would be diminished.
But most 'workers' take their rights for granted and don't see the relevance of the ALP or the unions. If you are like myself, who lived in britain during thatcher then you will see how easy it can be taken away. I guess Mr Abbott has indicated that his 'ideology' lies there but I don't think australians would accept the thatcher 'solution', even if sentiment is drifting that way.
Originally posted by ian_rocks
Labor sucks, If you want a true party for the working class try the PLP (people's labor party I think) or even the CPA :) (but that would be a proletarian party!)
Bloody Marxist bastards. With your avatar and so forth, I thought you would have been more inclined to tell people to vote for the local socialist movements. :)
Dennis Napthine
11 Jul 2002, 21:21
To be quiet honest with you, the Labor Party IS NOT the ideal Party. Do you want a state where democratic routines are in place? For years, the Liberal party has led from the front. I for one, will not let opposition legislation get out of tact.
Unlike many in the Labour party, I believe money would be better spent on police resources to target trafficking, and detoxification facilities. I also state that the Liberals would use their numbers in the Legislative Council to defeat the legislation when parliament resumed in mid-August.
Dr Dennis Napthine :)
Steve Bracks
11 Jul 2002, 22:41
Originally posted by Dennis Napthine
To be quiet honest with you, the Labor Party IS NOT the ideal Party. Do you want a state where democratic routines are in place? For years, the Liberal party has led from the front. I for one, will not let opposition legislation get out of tact.
Unlike many in the Labour party, I believe money would be better spent on police resources to target trafficking, and detoxification facilities. I also state that the Liberals would use their numbers in the Legislative Council to defeat the legislation when parliament resumed in mid-August.
Ah yes well I think the Labor Party has done a magnificient job not only here in Victoria but also in the other states as well. At the last State Election, I won with an overwhelming magority of votes, making me, Bracksy, the most popular Premier in Victorian history and making Victoria - The Place To Be!
Shinboners
11 Jul 2002, 22:54
Originally posted by Steve Bracks
Ah yes well I think the Labor Party has done a magnificient job not only here in Victoria but also in the other states as well. At the last State Election, I won with an overwhelming magority of votes, making me, Bracksy, the most popular Premier in Victorian history and making Victoria - The Place To Be!
The real Steve Bracks would've said
" Ah yes, okay, well I, that is me, the Premier of Victoria thinks, believes, and understands that the Labor Party, the Bracks Labor government, the government of Victoria has done a magnificent, a wonderful, a competent job not only here in Victoria, our state, the place to be, but also, in addition, in the other states, the rest of Australia, everywhere outside of Victoria as well. At the last state election, the previous poll, where the voters had their say, I, that is the ALP, our team, won with an overwhelming majority, got the mandate, won the people over, making me, Bracksy, the Premier of the state, the most popular, the most loved, the most admired, Premier in Victorian history, of all time, and making Victoria, our state, where we live - The Place to Be!
Note that Bracksy will make the speech as if he's just about to run out of breath.
Democracy will never work. Neither will any form of socialism.
The corporations have won. They are ****ing us, as we write.
ian_rocks
12 Jul 2002, 10:23
Bloody Marxist bastards. With your avatar and so forth, I thought you would have been more inclined to tell people to vote for the local socialist movements.
Dude! I did tell them to vote for the Communist Party of Australia!
*Ian starts to hum the Internationale*
ian_rocks
12 Jul 2002, 10:38
Democracy will never work. Neither will any form of socialism.
Democracy has proven it can work, directly. Parlimentary democracy is the most watered down version of any political system that pretends to give people a say because it lets them vote for tweedle-dee or tweedle-dum every 3 years.
With the current advance in technology I believe it would be possible to perform large scale direct democracy.
VIVA SOCIALISMO
Goldenblue
12 Jul 2002, 10:44
Originally posted by skilts
Democracy will never work. Neither will any form of socialism.
The corporations have won. They are ****ing us, as we write.
Touche......
George Bush is not the only A$$ Howard licks........
Originally posted by Pessimistic
The thatcher govenment had a political policy of 'stuff the poor' and redistributing wealth to "middle' and 'upper' classes. The had a 20-40-40 rule. The top 20% became wayyy beteer off and the middle 40% became substantually better off. The poorest 40% became much much worse off and were told to get f***** in several different ways. They weren't too happy but the othe 60% always outvoted them.
Eventually the penny dropped with the eletorate and the tories were routed.
If you are like myself, who lived in britain during thatcher then you will see how easy it can be taken away.
I lived through that era and I think you are wrong.
I voted for Labour and Harold Wilson, who I thought was a good prime minister. Callaghan was good too but the rot set in with Michael Foot. But the dominant force was that of the trade unions, who had brought UK to it's economical knees. The restrictive practices in the workplace were appalling. I remember well going to the Longbridge British Leyland car company and seeing people paid for doing nothing and lovely beds arranged for night shift workers. The pinnacle of power was Joe Gormley bringing down the Heath government. Joe was a clever, wily guy who I liked but that amount of power was too much and the country rebelled when an idiot called Scargill tried to do the same thing. In fact he nearly won when Thatcher gave in to 80% of his ransom request but he only wanted Gormley's fame and said no. The people were strongly behind Thatcher and Scargill along with the coal mining industry was routed.
Thatcher redressed the balance and brought prosperity back to England, but she then moved the pendulum the other way and became out of touch, losing power because of it. Her biggest enemy was called the 'poll tax', IMO a very fair change from council rates in theory but it backfired because most were worse off. At the time I thought it was naturally fairer as I lived in Lodgings with 9 people in the house. Next door was a pensioner couple paying the same rates for two people. Poll tax seemed fairer, but it cost Thatcher her job. But also, Labour hand gone central if not tending to the right and that enveloped the 40% you mention. Thatchers length of tenure was as much about an unpalatable alternative as it was her ability, paricularly in the second half of her reign.
IMO the first two terms of Thatcher put her as the second best PM of the century (behind Churchill) because she brought UK back from the abyss. Of course many of the communist trade union officials migrated to Australia when they were faced with Thatcher with special help from the ALP and we still suffer that impost today.
I could debate Thatcher v Anarchy ad infinitum but experience has shown that the Thatcher haters never listen to reason or fact.
Voice of Reason
12 Jul 2002, 11:40
Originally posted by Frodo
I lived through that era and I think you are wrong.
I voted for Labour and Harold Wilson, who I thought was a good prime minister. Callaghan was good too but the rot set in with Michael Foot. But the dominant force was that of the trade unions, who had brought UK to it's economical knees. The restrictive practices in the workplace were appalling. I remember well going to the Longbridge British Leyland car company and seeing people paid for doing nothing and lovely beds arranged for night shift workers. The pinnacle of power was Joe Gormley bringing down the Heath government. Joe was a clever, wily guy who I liked but that amount of power was too much and the country rebelled when an idiot called Scargill tried to do the same thing. In fact he nearly won when Thatcher gave in to 80% of his ransom request but he only wanted Gormley's fame and said no. The people were strongly behind Thatcher and Scargill along with the coal mining industry was routed.
Thatcher redressed the balance and brought prosperity back to England, but she then moved the pendulum the other way and became out of touch, losing power because of it. Her biggest enemy was called the 'poll tax', IMO a very fair change from council rates in theory but it backfired because most were worse off. At the time I thought it was naturally fairer as I lived in Lodgings with 9 people in the house. Next door was a pensioner couple paying the same rates for two people. Poll tax seemed fairer, but it cost Thatcher her job. But also, Labour hand gone central if not tending to the right and that enveloped the 40% you mention. Thatchers length of tenure was as much about an unpalatable alternative as it was her ability, paricularly in the second half of her reign.
IMO the first two terms of Thatcher put her as the second best PM of the century (behind Churchill) because she brought UK back from the abyss. Of course many of the communist trade union officials migrated to Australia when they were faced with Thatcher with special help from the ALP and we still suffer that impost today.
I could debate Thatcher v Anarchy ad infinitum but experience has shown that the Thatcher haters never listen to reason or fact.
I don't like Thatcher and emigrated about halfway through her reign. But I do agree with about 80% of what you've posted above. And I listen to reason and fact. :D
Pessimistic
12 Jul 2002, 12:36
OK.
Thatcher first destroyed and rebuilt britain.
It would have been better to not have destroyed it first. In australia they refornmed the place without hacking it to bits.
To support my statement I think it took about 6 years for the output of britain to get back up to levels inherited by her. She also spent the vast majority of the money from oil resources doing this. Britain was one of the biggest oil producing nations ever. Thatcher allowed the price of oil to drop to unprecedented levels just so the west could bring the middle eastern countries down.
Add to that the most poitless war ever, the worst attitude to the British constitution (the queen is, in fact the head of the armed forces) and its a pretty mixed bag.
What she has to be admired for is being a very good politician and looking after 'her' people very very well.
Originally posted by Pessimistic
OK.
Thatcher first destroyed and rebuilt britain.
It would have been better to not have destroyed it first. In australia they refornmed the place without hacking it to bits.
To support my statement I think it took about 6 years for the output of britain to get back up to levels inherited by her. She also spent the vast majority of the money from oil resources doing this. Britain was one of the biggest oil producing nations ever. Thatcher allowed the price of oil to drop to unprecedented levels just so the west could bring the middle eastern countries down.
Add to that the most poitless war ever, the worst attitude to the British constitution (the queen is, in fact the head of the armed forces) and its a pretty mixed bag.
What she has to be admired for is being a very good politician and looking after 'her' people very very well.
What she inherited was a nation that had been so bankrupted by labour government that the IMF had to come in to bail the UK out. And yes, it took around six years to put UK back on track and north sea oil helped. However, at peak output brent crude was never more than 5% of world output and the UK had no control on prices. OPEC did and does control oil pricing.
Pointless war! So if another country invaded Christmas Island you would just leave our citizens to it!! And do you have any idea of the strategic importance of the Falklands!
Although I am not a Royalist I don't think you can blame Thatcher for being head of the armed forces either.
Finaly, when did anyone reform Australia. If it were not for Gold, Wheat, Iron and Coal we would need a good dose of Thatcher for a few years too!!!
Originally posted by ian_rocks
Dude! I did tell them to vote for the Communist Party of Australia!
*Ian starts to hum the Internationale*
Oho, you did to. I wondered why you were asking peopel to vote for accountants!
Get it? CPA? Ha ha ha...
Nevermind.
ian_rocks
12 Jul 2002, 18:32
Oho, you did to. I wondered why you were asking peopel to vote for accountants!
Hee hee yeah *sigh*.......
fabulousphil
23 Jul 2002, 00:41
People these days vote not by traditional party lines but whos going to give them the best, i come from a traditional catholic working class labour voting background but the reality is most of the younger members of the family and relations are tertiary educated or have their own businesses and although believe in unions are not members of them.
In the last 10 years i have not voted labour but i could not bring myself to vote liberal but alas in the last election i voted for little johnie because he offered me ------- in the mortgage belt and self employed a better deal than labour.