The Liberal Party - How long? - Part 2

[The Punter]

Their treatment of the CFMEU in the past 18 months shows they'll drop any union like a hot stone if they think the association will cost them votes.

Just out of curiosity, is there something the CFMEU could have done that would have warranted the ALP's "dropping" of them?

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Just out of curiosity, is there something the CFMEU could have done that would have warranted the ALP's "dropping" of them?

Sure, if they'd sworn allegiance to Islamic State and voiced their desire to overthrow the Australian government in favour of joining the IS caliphate.

Short of something so dramatic, it depends on your view of electoralism versus principle and whether all members in an organisation should be treated based on the suspected actions of the leaders of the organisation.

To many people on the left, solidarity is more than just an alliance that exists in times where it's convenient and ditched when it's inconvenient. It's a principle that lasts through all sorts of circumstances, and is most necessary precisely when it's inconvenient. Otherwise, it's just lip service.

For example, general strikes are effective when workers of multiple professions are willing to show solidarity with workers of profession X when profession X are in the midst of a labour dispute, even though workers of any other profession will experience a financial impact by doing so. That's real solidarity (and is also a secondary boycott, which was made illegal by Labor in 1974 and reaffirmed as illegal by Labor in 2009). If workers talk about having sympathy with those on strike but won't stand beside them (when legally able to do so, at least), well, talk is cheap.

Showing solidarity with the CFMEU when the union organisers are suspected of serious crimes would mean defending the workers and making it clear that most of them are not suspected of any crime. It would also mean reminding the public that the figures who are under suspicion have not yet been tried in a court of law, and in this country we have the legal principle that people are considered innocent until proven guilty.

Labor are ostensibly a workers party and a party of the left. For that reason, principled leftists would probably say that Labor should have shown solidarity with the CFMEU, both due to the general principle, and also because the vast majority of its workers are not suspected of crimes. They'd argue that collective punishment isn't fair. Yes, that would probably come at an electoral cost to Labor. But as above, real solidarity involves a cost. It's most needed when it's inconvenient to give.

Instead, Labor chose to suspend the affiliation of the CFMEU construction division to Labor branches, appointed administrators to run it instead of letting the members pick their own leaders to replace the figures suspended due to criminal accusations, and openly discussed the idea of deregistering the entire union. They were happy to keep all the CFMEUs past donations though. We shouldn't be surprised either, because Labor destroyed the CFMEUs predecessor, the BLF, when their leaders were accused of corruption during the Hawke government.

 

[The Punter]

Sure, if they'd sworn allegiance to Islamic State and voiced their desire to overthrow the Australian government in favour of joining the IS caliphate.

Short of something so dramatic, it depends on your view of electoralism versus principle and whether all members in an organisation should be treated based on the suspected actions of the leaders of the organisation.

To many people on the left, solidarity is more than just an alliance that exists in times where it's convenient and ditched when it's inconvenient. It's a principle that lasts through all sorts of circumstances, and is most necessary precisely when it's inconvenient. Otherwise, it's just lip service.

For example, general strikes are effective when workers of multiple professions are willing to show solidarity with workers of profession X when profession X are in the midst of a labour dispute, even though workers of any other profession will experience a financial impact by doing so. That's real solidarity (and is also a secondary boycott, which was made illegal by Labor in 1974 and reaffirmed as illegal by Labor in 2009). If workers talk about having sympathy with those on strike but won't stand beside them (when legally able to do so, at least), well, talk is cheap.

Showing solidarity with the CFMEU when the union organisers are suspected of serious crimes would mean defending the workers and making it clear that most of them are not suspected of any crime. It would also mean reminding the public that the figures who are under suspicion have not yet been tried in a court of law, and in this country we have the legal principle that people are considered innocent until proven guilty.

Labor are ostensibly a workers party and a party of the left. For that reason, principled leftists would probably say that Labor should have shown solidarity with the CFMEU, both due to the general principle, and also because the vast majority of its workers are not suspected of crimes. They'd argue that collective punishment isn't fair. Yes, that would probably come at an electoral cost to Labor. But as above, real solidarity involves a cost. It's most needed when it's inconvenient to give.

Instead, Labor chose to suspend the affiliation of the CFMEU construction division to Labor branches, appointed administrators to run it instead of letting the members pick their own leaders to replace the figures suspended due to criminal accusations, and openly discussed the idea of deregistering the entire union. They were happy to keep all the CFMEUs past donations though. We shouldn't be surprised either, because Labor destroyed the CFMEUs predecessor, the BLF, when their leaders were accused of corruption during the Hawke government.

They should return the donations. I also agree that strikes are most effective when other people just decide to join in.

I asked my question in the context of this article from well regarded investigative journalist Nick McKenzie:

CFMEU power play turned Ben’s dream into a fatal nightmare

The day before his 19th birthday, he went to his first day in a new job. He was bullied, humiliated and locked in a shed.

www.theage.com.au

Unfortunately, one of the side effects of collectivism is you tend to be held responsible for the actions of others simply due to common organisational membership.

 

[Grin]

Sure, if they'd sworn allegiance to Islamic State and voiced their desire to overthrow the Australian government in favour of joining the IS caliphate.

Short of something so dramatic, it depends on your view of electoralism versus principle and whether all members in an organisation should be treated based on the suspected actions of the leaders of the organisation.

To many people on the left, solidarity is more than just an alliance that exists in times where it's convenient and ditched when it's inconvenient. It's a principle that lasts through all sorts of circumstances, and is most necessary precisely when it's inconvenient. Otherwise, it's just lip service.

For example, general strikes are effective when workers of multiple professions are willing to show solidarity with workers of profession X when profession X are in the midst of a labour dispute, even though workers of any other profession will experience a financial impact by doing so. That's real solidarity (and is also a secondary boycott, which was made illegal by Labor in 1974 and reaffirmed as illegal by Labor in 2009). If workers talk about having sympathy with those on strike but won't stand beside them (when legally able to do so, at least), well, talk is cheap.

Showing solidarity with the CFMEU when the union organisers are suspected of serious crimes would mean defending the workers and making it clear that most of them are not suspected of any crime. It would also mean reminding the public that the figures who are under suspicion have not yet been tried in a court of law, and in this country we have the legal principle that people are considered innocent until proven guilty.

Labor are ostensibly a workers party and a party of the left. For that reason, principled leftists would probably say that Labor should have shown solidarity with the CFMEU, both due to the general principle, and also because the vast majority of its workers are not suspected of crimes. They'd argue that collective punishment isn't fair. Yes, that would probably come at an electoral cost to Labor. But as above, real solidarity involves a cost. It's most needed when it's inconvenient to give.

Instead, Labor chose to suspend the affiliation of the CFMEU construction division to Labor branches, appointed administrators to run it instead of letting the members pick their own leaders to replace the figures suspended due to criminal accusations, and openly discussed the idea of deregistering the entire union. They were happy to keep all the CFMEUs past donations though. We shouldn't be surprised either, because Labor destroyed the CFMEUs predecessor, the BLF, when their leaders were accused of corruption during the Hawke government.

There have been other unions who's leaders have been not just accused, but convicted of corruption, but have not been treated like the CFMEU and the BLF by the ALP.

There's reasons for that. The ALP, just as much as the Coalition, fear and loath any organisation or institution that defends the rights of the most powerless in our community, to the detriment of corrupt developers, who pay the ALP handsomely for protection. The ALP will do whatever it feels necessary to protect this mutually very profitable relationship.
The corruption of the secretaries of the CFMEU and BLF gives them cover. Of course legacy media dutifully tow the line.

 

[nut]

It’s all too funny… the nationals are destroying the Liberal Party by dragging them right, opening up the door for more independents in marginal seats.

The Canavan Climate Trust | Climate 200

www.climate200.com.au

 

[Demonic Ascent]

I don’t really care whether Sussan Ley survives as leader and I’d happy for the Libs to completely disintegrate, but FMD, if you agree, like me, that we need a credible opposition, to keep the government of the day accountable and on their toes, then it’s painfully obvious that she is their only chance.

The LNP is not a credible opposition and I don't want the credible opposition pulling a centre/centre-right government further right. We need a credible opposition on the left, the LNP can FOAD as far as I'm concerned. Bunch of grifters and reprobates.

 

[Saint]

The LNP is not a credible opposition and I don't want the credible opposition pulling a centre/centre-right government further right. We need a credible opposition on the left, the LNP can FOAD as far as I'm concerned. Bunch of grifters and reprobates.

The Coalition is now Family First and Nationals of 2000.
The ALP is now moderate Liberals and centrist Labour.
The Teals sit between the ALP and LNP in urban areas.
The Greens are still to the progressive side of the ALP and as the ALP moves to the right to pick up disaffected Lib voters, the Greens are picking up disaffected ALP voters.

This article is written from the LNP perspective. But from a Greens perspective, they're holding onto Gen Z voters and Millennials (who are now in their 30's and 40's). This is at the expense of Coalition votes. (ALP picks up Lib votes, Greens pick up ALP votes). If the ALP keep moving right, the Liberals might end up the third largest party, after the Greens, in 10 years' time. Sending Matt Canavan to "negotiate" on something he'll never negotiate on is pretty interesting from the Nationals.

New figures show Coalition's 'existential' millennial problem getting worse

As Liberals prepare to fly to Canberra to hash out their net zero stance, results from the Australian Election Study suggest those under 45 have continued to drift away from the Coalition.

www.abc.net.au

 

[Ghost Patrol]

I see they are doing the performative hall monitor routine again.

 

[Bont2Bruce]

Sending Matt Canavan to "negotiate" on something he'll never negotiate on is pretty interesting from the Nationals.

Yes, this. It's such an obviously foregone conclusion how it will end, why bother to even start?

 

[Saint]

Yes, this. It's such an obviously foregone conclusion how it will end, why bother to even start?

It's the Nationals trying to exert their influence.

The Nationals have a much greater proportion of MPs than the Libs than they used to.

They're not as much of a junior partner any more.

And if the coalition doesn't hold, it'll be Ley's seat first on the target list of the Nats.

 

[RedOrWhite]

The Coalition is now Family First and Nationals of 2000.
The ALP is now moderate Liberals and centrist Labour.
The Teals sit between the ALP and LNP in urban areas.
The Greens are still to the progressive side of the ALP and as the ALP moves to the right to pick up disaffected Lib voters, the Greens are picking up disaffected ALP voters.

This article is written from the LNP perspective. But from a Greens perspective, they're holding onto Gen Z voters and Millennials (who are now in their 30's and 40's). This is at the expense of Coalition votes. (ALP picks up Lib votes, Greens pick up ALP votes). If the ALP keep moving right, the Liberals might end up the third largest party, after the Greens, in 10 years' time. Sending Matt Canavan to "negotiate" on something he'll never negotiate on is pretty interesting from the Nationals.

New figures show Coalition's 'existential' millennial problem getting worse

As Liberals prepare to fly to Canberra to hash out their net zero stance, results from the Australian Election Study suggest those under 45 have continued to drift away from the Coalition.

www.abc.net.au

View attachment 2475179
View attachment 2475181

More of the what's remaining of the right wing vote is going to the PHON's and whatever other RW crazies are on the ballot, so the Libs are chasing their own tail.

 

[B4Bear]

Want to know how far the Liberals have fallen in terms of decency - I give you Liberal Senator for South Australia Alex Antic. His party placed him at the top of the Liberal how to vote card at the last Federal election.

His latest focus is on all those women who carry a baby for nine months, just so they can have a late term abortion (on medical advice) to rort the system.

To her credit, Liberal leader Sussan Ley condemned the motion.


View attachment 2471297

My wife was was reduced to tears and an outrage so great she could barely speak.

There is the next election advertisement already done.

It is perhaps one of the most vile things I have ever heard a politician utter, and they wonder why they don’t attract talented women.

 

[Bont2Bruce]

My wife was was reduced to tears and an outrage so great she could barely speak.

There is the next election advertisement already done.

It is perhaps one of the most vile things I have ever heard a politician utter, and they wonder why they don’t attract talented women.

I do not believe that "they" are under any doubt about why they are unattractive to women as a political party. I genuinely believe Antic and other coalition senators who voted together with Antic from the safest first senate ticket location of various other states couldn't care less about it.

 

[schneebly111]

The Nationals have a much greater proportion of MPs than the Libs than they used to.

And let’s look at where the remaining “Liberals” exist in order of least to most safe:

Longman - outer Brisbane to Sunshine Coast

Berowra - outer Hills district of Sydney with a very moderate MP in Lesser

La Trobe - mostly rural just on the outskirts of Melbourne

Forrest - SW WA regional centres

Bowman - Brisbane outer metro

Lindsay - Sydney outer metro

Casey - Dandenong ranges rural

Fairfax - Sunshine Coast

Mitchell - Hills district Sydney (the ‘Bible belt’)

Goldstein - inner Melbourne but Teal territory

Monash - rural Vic

McPherson - Gold Coast

Grey - outback SA

Flinders - semi rural Mornington peninsula

(Here would be Capricornia Central QLD, the first National seat in comparison)

Fisher - rural sunshine coast

Canning - outer metro Perth and rural

Fadden - gold coast

Cook - Sutherland shire

Wright - rural Qld

Hume - semi rural outer sydney

Moncrieff - Gold Coast

Durack - North WA

Wannon - Rural Vic

Farrell - Rural NSW

Barker - Rural SA

O’Connor - Rural WA

Groom - Rural Qld

Herbert - Townsville, the safest Liberal seat in the country.

It’s clear the safer the seats are the more rural they are. I count about 12 that are pretty much rural seats, not even semi rural.

That puts the coalition on 27 seats that represent rural areas, and 16 that represent major city outer metro or Gold/Sunshine Coast. The exceptions being Cook (Cronulla) and Goldstein (former Teal).

The Coalition now is 60% representing strictly rural areas. So the rural influence, the Nat influence reigns supreme, even if nominally they are the “junior” party.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

If the ALP keep moving right, the Liberals might end up the third largest party, after the Greens, in 10 years' time.

Much as this is my preferred outcome, I don't think it'll happen. Labor have done a very effective job of using the Greens as their scapegoat for any and all problems due to being "blockers" and "in an unholy alliance with the Coalition", and their consistent messaging on this has convinced a lot of potential Greens voters to shun or distrust them.

It feels like every article or video that mentions the Greens has comments sections full of misinformed people (or Labor Party plants) who bemoan the Greens for apparently killing climate action by voting against the CPRS in 2009, which is a common excuse offered by Labor for their failures on that front. Intentionally or not, a lot of voters seem to have memory-holed the facts of that entire era, such as Rudd's refusal to negotiate, Labor's unpopularity for things entirely unrelated to carbon pricing, and most of all, that the Greens worker with the Gillard government to establish a carbon price the very next year.

The point is, voters often don't vote based on logic and facts, but identity and feelings. And I think the feelings of many towards both the Greens and the Liberals in future are going to be marked by a lot of antipathy. At least the Liberals will always have money on their side, as well as their solid vote banks (the rich, the elderly and the very religious). The Greens would have to work very hard and have a lot of good fortune to become the second-biggest party, even with the decline of the Liberals.

 

[big_e]

It's the Nationals trying to exert their influence.

The Nationals have a much greater proportion of MPs than the Libs than they used to.

They're not as much of a junior partner any more.

And if the coalition doesn't hold, it'll be Ley's seat first on the target list of the Nats.

Ley's first and biggest mistake was letting the Nationals back in after they initially rejected the Coalition. All the upside is for the Nationals, and it just causes problems for the Libs.

 

[Bont2Bruce]

Ley's first and biggest mistake was letting the Nationals back in after they initially rejected the Coalition. All the upside is for the Nationals, and it just causes problems for the Libs.

Spot on. Liberals are not setting the agenda, they are being firmly led around by the nose by the Nationals. The Liberal's lack of urban electoral representation means they are now becoming a rural party and not easy to differentiate from the "other" rural party.

 

[RedOrWhite]

Much as this is my preferred outcome, I don't think it'll happen. Labor have done a very effective job of using the Greens as their scapegoat for any and all problems due to being "blockers" and "in an unholy alliance with the Coalition", and their consistent messaging on this has convinced a lot of potential Greens voters to shun or distrust them.

It feels like every article or video that mentions the Greens has comments sections full of misinformed people (or Labor Party plants) who bemoan the Greens for apparently killing climate action by voting against the CPRS in 2009, which is a common excuse offered by Labor for their failures on that front. Intentionally or not, a lot of voters seem to have memory-holed the facts of that entire era, such as Rudd's refusal to negotiate, Labor's unpopularity for things entirely unrelated to carbon pricing, and most of all, that the Greens worker with the Gillard government to establish a carbon price the very next year.

The point is, voters often don't vote based on logic and facts, but identity and feelings. And I think the feelings of many towards both the Greens and the Liberals in future are going to be marked by a lot of antipathy. At least the Liberals will always have money on their side, as well as their solid vote banks (the rich, the elderly and the very religious). The Greens would have to work very hard and have a lot of good fortune to become the second-biggest party, even with the decline of the Liberals.

Great post. Lots of Labor voters I know hate the Greens just as much if not more than the Libs. Largely due to the bolded.
Many others vote Labor coz they are the easy I didn't vote for the Libs vote, not out of any enthusiasm.

 

[The Punter]

On the Nats, its the same issue as the reactionary Libs: what always drew them back to a more sensible position doesn't hold the same allure any more.

What did draw them back: the government benches.

The Nats would moderate their worst impulses (as well as reasonable conservatives in the Liberal Party) because of the attraction of being a minister. For a key section of both those groups now, they don't care about being a minister if it means compromise.

So only one major political force is sufficiently interested in government any more. And the legendary Greens-defeater of the Socialist Left: Anthony Norman Albanese, is in charge. I'm sure he feels pretty comfortable he can defend his positions on either flank right now.

 

[Forward Press]

Apparently an 'overwhelming' number of Liberal Party MPs support ditching net zero. Which is fine if you want to hold onto your rural seats who - justifiably or not - have concerns about renewable energy meeting their needs and the loss of jobs due to abandoning fossil fuels over time.

But the election isn't won in rural seats and the urbanisation of Australia is only going to increase in the next few years. An anti-climate change stance certainly won't win back those that went teal two elections ago. I am not sure the Libs know what to do to win government any more other than hoping for the ALP to stuff up.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

And the legendary Greens-defeater of the Socialist Left: Anthony Norman Albanese, is in charge. I'm sure he feels pretty comfortable he can defend his positions on either flank right now.

And we, the Australians, suffer.

 

[B4Bear]

And we, the Australians, suffer.

Care to expand? Or are we supposed to extrapolate from you Sky talking point?

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

and most of all, that the Greens worker with the Gillard government to establish a carbon price the very next year.

The continuing failure to acknowledge this plain historical fact is one of the most infuriating and disgraceful pieces of gaslighting in Oz politics.

The Greens and Gillard Labor negotiated a carbon scheme. It came into operation. It was reducing emissions.

Tony Abbott came along and said “nah, stuff that” and destroyed any action on climate for the best part of a decade.

But seemingly intelligent Labor barrackers (and plenty of people in the media who should know better) will insist to this day that the villain is not Tony Abbott, it’s the Greens for declining to vote for a whole other scheme a year earlier (a scheme to which, just for the record, they had applied Treasury’s own figures to conclude it was as much use as mammaries on a male bovine quadruped.)

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Care to expand? Or are we supposed to extrapolate from you Sky talking point?

Albanese is using his unassailable position not to advance bold policy for the good of the nation, but to do nothing more noble but stay in office.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Care to expand? Or are we supposed to extrapolate from you Sky talking point?

PS I wouldnt watch Sky if you paid me.