Changing Personal Political Perceptions

[Player]

Has anybody else found that their personal political views have undergone an evolution from one side of the political spectrum to the other?

From a comfortable middle class family, as a University student I identifed with the Labour party and supported pro-union policies as desirable for promoting working class aspirations.

I considered myself a social democrat, completed a couple of political economy/left wing political papers, which I found far more enjoyable than my major.

I even considered postgraduate study.

Two general elections later and I now feel uncomfortable identifing with left wing political parties, instead I find myself increasingly identifying wth the Tories.

I'm still opposed to the extreme New Right ideology, but your traditional Tory conservatism seems about right.

I have not yet voted for them at a general election, as it is still a matter of mistrusting their upper hierarchy, but I have voted for a right wing mayor and council during recent local elections.

But if all politics are local, I have just moved to a real battleground electorate, with a high profile anti-development greenie for a MP, voting for the Tory seems a nobrainer.

Any thoughts.

 

[Portia]

I am, and always have been, a centrist. Precisely, I'm an authoritarian libertarian with left & right wing tendencies.

 

[Docker_Brat]

Originally posted by Porthos
I am, and always have been, a centrist. Precisely, I'm an authoritarian libertarian with left & right wing tendencies.

Translation: "Fence sitter"

 

[66MunsterT]

Originally posted by Porthos
I am, and always have been, a centrist. Precisely, I'm an authoritarian libertarian with left & right wing tendencies.

Oh Yeah Right, umm err should that be Left?
No can't be Left, cos that's just not Right.
Hang on, I think I can see you Porthos, your the Person in the
Middle over there.

Cheers,

The Munster.

 

[wagstaff]

Originally posted by Player

From a comfortable middle class family, as a University student I identifed with the Labour party and supported pro-union policies as desirable for promoting working class aspirations.

Anyone who thinks that the Labor Party and the unions are genuine representatives of the working-class are in for an unpleasant surprise, as it seems you have been.

Both the unions and the ALP are subservient to big business and the financial markets. The unions are always talking about representing the workers but when push comes to shove, they will always side with the company owners in ensuring that most of the employers' demands are met (reduced workforce, poorer working conditions).

The unions will then argue that this agreement was worked out with them involved, then it was a victory for the workers!

 

[Captain Sensible]

To use a Howardism I come from a "rusted on" ALP background. I played a big part in the ALP youth wing, and have always voted ALP in elections.

However I no longer feel comfortable with the principles, ideals, leadership, priorities, bedmates, parliamentarians or direction of the party. This had been happening for a long while during the Beazley years and the final straw was the Tampa crisis before the federal election last year. Ignoring the rights and wrongs of the incident the thing that really annoyed me was because of the ALP's spinelessness we never had the debate we should have had at the time. Surely the first duty of opposition is to OPPOSE not just squib it and feebly agree with the Government for political expediance. I voted for the Greens.


Sorry for the rant, but it is by way illustrating my question and that is; Have I changed my political convictions or has the ALP changed that much?

 

[Portia]

Originally posted by Docker_Brat
Translation: "Fence sitter"

I dunno if thats meant to be a derogatory remark or not. I can't see how its a bad thing to agree with stuff that makes sense to you, rather than blindly adhere to an arbitrarily aligned set of principles.

 

[Shinboners]

Originally posted by localyokel
Have I changed my political convictions or has the ALP changed that much?

I reckon the ALP has changed. It stopped being a working class party when Gough Whitlam took over. As one of their old stalwarts (Cameron, I think it was) once observed, "The ALP used to attract the cream of the working class. Now it gets the dregs of the middle class".

Not that the Liberals are any better. The Liberal party I used to support were economic conservatives but were flexible, but social libertarians. What ever happened to the Ian McPhees and Fred Chaneys?

 

[Darky]

Originally posted by Porthos
I dunno if thats meant to be a derogatory remark or not. I can't see how its a bad thing to agree with stuff that makes sense to you, rather than blindly adhere to an arbitrarily aligned set of principles.

I agree with Porthos - in theory swinging voters are the ones that think the most before they vote, voting on timely and relevant issues rather than tradition and a simple left vs right slant on things.

Generally most people will lean either left or right to some extent, but true objectivity is when you don't need to be convinced to change sides... if a single statement, or a group of beliefs (policies if you like) has merit, it should be considered on its own, and not pre-empted with party politics in mind.

 

[Dr AlfAndrews]

Originally posted by Darky
... in theory swinging voters are the ones that think the most before they vote, voting on timely and relevant issues rather than tradition and a simple left vs right slant on things ...

... but in reality they are the ones who vote according to how well they've been pork-barrelled by the major parties.

 

[Santos L Helper]

Originally posted by Darky


I agree with Porthos - in theory swinging voters are the ones that think the most before they vote, voting on timely and relevant issues rather than tradition and a simple left vs right slant on things.

Generally most people will lean either left or right to some extent, but true objectivity is when you don't need to be convinced to change sides... if a single statement, or a group of beliefs (policies if you like) has merit, it should be considered on its own, and not pre-empted with party politics in mind.

Or they are the ones most easily persuaded by spin doctors and lies. eg Tampa crisis.

Looks like I agree with Dr Alf on this one.

 

[Portia]

Yes, they're more easily persuaded because they are in a position to think about the issues.

Someone sticking to the party line just because they always have is not going to be swayed, because that would require some effort to consider the issues involved. Instead they'll just vote Labor/Liberal and not have to think for more than 5 minutes about their vote.

 

[Captain Sensible]

Originally posted by Shinboners


"The ALP used to attract the cream of the working class. Now it gets the dregs of the middle class".


-Very, very true.






Not that the Liberals are any better. The Liberal party I used to support were economic conservatives but were flexible, but social libertarians.


-This is exactly my point. The Libs were economic conservatives, Labor were more progressive. Libs were social libertarians and the ALP were more socialy conservative. Now both parties have converged in the middle and offer no alternative to people like me.


What ever happened to the Ian McPhees and Fred Chaneys?

-And the Pete Steedmans?

 

[Bloodstained Angel]

Player - would your shifting personal allegiances have abnything to do with the fact that most Left Wing politics in New Zealand is of the totally un-reconstructed Socialist variety ?

Mopst of the economic policies and theories as espoused by Helen Clarke and Jim Anderton are pretty, er, discredied these days right ?

anyway - heres where I stand

I've always considered myself the classic small 'l' liberal.

My own lifestyle and values are quite conservative - but my general outlook on society is libertarian - very libertaraian.

People should be able to what they want, when they want, how they want, where they want, with who they want and how long they want.

Also - people should be free to believe in what they want, put stuff into their bodies how they want, stick their genitals where they want, worship the god that they want, work the job that they want, go to the school that they want, watch the movie/ listen to the music/ read the book that they want as well.

So I'm concerned with personal liberty and freedom - for everybody.

On party politics, I admit I have voted for the ALP more than other parties, but the last time I voted for the ALP was in 1993, and I voted for Andrew Peacock in 1990. I voted for John Howard and the Conservatives in both 1996 and 1998. In 1996 I voted for Howard because whilst I still loved Paul Keatings rhetoric, his results on the ground could only be considered extremely dissappointing. In 1998 despite my utter dismay at Howard's hard-arse social conservatism, I beliv ed in the idea of a consumption tax and thought it should be given a go.

In 2001 not even their good economic record could save the Conservatives for my vote - they were just as divisive, just as malicious, just as incompetent and just as plain old nasty as any Tory party anywhere in teh world had proved themselves to be - they showeed themselves to be a thoroughly nasty piece of work - from all angles.

So 2001 I voted for the Greens, partly as a protest against both Coalition and ALP for its utterly mean-spirited (not to mention iullegal) approach to the issue of boat people, but also because no major party was prepared to address the issue of the environment.

The Coalition dismissed environmental issues out of hand (and in fact vilified those who would have a concern for the environment)

and of course the ALP is in thepocket of trogladyte Trade Unions who care about nothing except presewrving jobs that simply don't exist anymore.

So in spite of their appalling organisation, and their continuing pre-occupation with trying to find a puesdo-Marxist solution to everything -= I voted for the Greens

cheers

 

[Voice of Reason]

IMO

In a global sense, political parties of the Right and Left have moved towards the Centre over the recent period of (relatively) extended economic prosperity. To the extent that in the UK, Blair's New Labour would be more right-wing than the Tory party pre-Thatcher in some respects. So Australia is to some degree a reflection of global trends.

Also I think people change their views as they get older, usually in a Right-ward, but sometimes in a Left-ward direction. BSA's journey or a variation on it is not uncommon. The one thing mature people do realise and just about all agree on is that politics is a dirty game and all party lines are flawed.

 

[Fat Red]

I don't want to do an I believe statement, but I have a set of values and I vote for the party that I think is most likely to make the world how I like it (or leave it how I like it!)

In general I'm more comfortable with Labor-style professional politics than Liberal establishment control but that's a question of style not substance.

I see myself as a swinging voter but in the last 10 years haven't voted Liberal: Kennett and Howard are completely unpalatable to me.

In response to Shinboner's point, if the ALP has not been a labor party since Whitlam took over, 35 years ago, I don't think there's much future in it returning to its roots. The problem with being a working class party is that there isn't much working class left. Most Australians are employed in non-unionised service industries or in the government sector.

 

[ACV]

This thread makes for interesting reading. I think that it is generally the pol9itical parties have changed over the course of time. This may sound a little strange but this is the way one of my Uni lectures put it. He likened the political spectrum to a beach on a hot day and the two major political parties to ice cream sellers. If the ALP(ice cream seller) set up on the left then they will attract all those(ice cream buyers) further left than themselves, then the liberal party(other ice cream seller) will set up right next to them and attract all of the people(ice cream buyers) to the right (ie most of the voters or ice cream buyers), if the ALP is left of center). Consequently, if either party sets up either side of the center the other shall set up next to them and gain more of the vote so they both set up in the center.

Does anyone understand that?????

If i didn't know what i meant then i don't think i'd understand so i apologise.

 

[Fat Red]

No ACV, I understand exactly what you mean. The parties decide that winning elections is the most important thing, and try to set themselves up as being 'closer' to more people than the other side.

The Hawke government did this extremely sucessfully by moving to the right, thereby pushing the Liberals further to the right in an attempt to be different (plus that was the worldwide trend anyway with economic rationalism and Howard loved it).

The problem is that when a left-wing party moves right they leave behind a lot of lefties who then go to parties like the Greens. Then, when they got a bit weaker and the Libs a bit stronger, they lost government and got stranded, having lost their base but finding the swinging voters they picked up are exactly that, swinging voters.

 

[BMD]

Blues 2001, you make a very good point. Howard won in '96 on the back of "Howard's Battlers" (a term I despise), basically traditional Labor voters who thought the Keating government was not doing enough for them - too concerned with long term social issues.

John Howard won these voters over and they seem to have largely stuck with him. However Howard has pissed off a lot of traditional Liberal voters (swing away from Liberals in a lot of traditional safe Liberal seats esp in Sydney and Melbourne) with his hard line social conservatism. Hasn't pissed off enough of them to lose yet though.

If Howard retires before the next election and Costello becomes prime minister he may well win these voters back with a more modern social approach. Time will tell.

The art of winning government in this country is about attracting enough opposition supporters without pissing off too many of your own.

Then again, having worked on the election (for the commission) I can tell you that there are a huge number of voters who don't care less and are only there because they have to be. Who they vote for is anyone's guess. Compulsory voting should be abolished IMO.

 

[Fat Red]

Originally posted by BMD
Blues 2001,

Who's he??

Just kidding, easy mistake to make: however he has brown fur and long ears whereas I look like you should be hitting me into the side of a house on stilts with a golf club.

Anyway, BMD, how do you get to be a vote-counting type person?

 

[BMD]

D'oh!

Sorry.

It's pretty easy, ring the electoral commission when the election is called, and they'll get you to fill in a form. They sound non-committal, but they're always looking for people by the time the big day comes around.

Anyone who did it last time automatically gets a call asking if they're interested in going around again.

It's quite an interesting day - democracy at work and all that. If you do it locally, it gives you a good idea who your neighbours are as well.

 

[ACV]

Originally posted by Fat Red
No ACV, I understand exactly what you mean. .

Good i'm glad someone understood cause i still don't think that i would have.

 

[Methuselah]

Someone once said that it doesn't really matter who you vote for....a politician always wins.

The older I get the more I am struck by how we always manage to avoid debating the real issues at elections either among our political candidates or the public at large.

Debates these days are tame affairs and stage managed by the media many of whom leave journalism to manage politicians.

I have in recent times spent some time in a country undergoing a traumatic upheaval in the system of governance and politics, and I have been somewhat amused about how comfortable we all are here - that is something to be cherished. Perhaps the fact we are so apathetic about politics in this country is a sign that we are basically happy with our lot.