![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The ALP's 41st National Conference
As a member of the Labor Party, you soon get used to losing; if you're a member of the Left you really get used to losing. Of course, being a member of a political party - indeed any organisation - is always an experience of imperfection and compromise, and it is more the case when that organistion is significant enough to be the government of a country. The three day ALP National Conference, true to the Prime Minister's promise, was indeed full of "fair dinkum" debate although the outcomes, due to various factional allegiences was fairly obvious. On all the controversial matters the votes were roughly 215 (Right and Gillard/Ferguson Left) to 180 (National Left and independents), with a little bit of slippage on specific issues (I am increasingly impressed by the Victorian branch of the National Union of Workers, for example).
My tweeting of said conference is available but in summary; Labor voted at add Marriage Equality to the platform, albeit with a conscience vote. Sen. de Bruyn, an extreme conservative, was soundly mocked on his rhetorical questions on this issue. Labor voted to support offshore processing of asylum seekers (which knocks on the head my appeal to the National Tribunal), however it also agreed to increase the refugee intake by some 45% to 20,000 and some significant changes to the detention and visa regime. On party reform, the Right was in disarray, and the Left didn't push the advantage, leading to a vague committment to more directed elected delegates. Finally, the party also voted to agree to the sale of uranium to India, a non-signatory to the NNPT.
Astute observers will notice with a 4% change in voting delegates would have produced very different outcomes, and the onus is on the Left, for once, to actually get that handful of numbers (about 1400 people and equivalent number of union delegates), especially in an environment where thousands have been leaving the Party. More importantly however, the Left has to win the ideological debate on the key issues. The Right did put up some fairly good arguments in favour of a conscience vote on marriage equality (e.g., the Marriage Act itself was subject to a conscience vote) and offshore processing (e.g., the loss of lives by those attempting asylum), and to a much lesser extent, the justifications for sale of uranium to India (e.g., economic development for Australia and India). Indeed, when one considers both the uranium and off-shore processing issue, there's a rather worrying anti-international relations agenda in place, assuming that once again Labor tries to export asylum seekers to a non-signatory to the Refugee Convention.
Also attended two of the fringe programe events; one on how progressives can win elections and another on the UN International Year of Cooperatives. The former included representatives from the NDP and the UK Labour Party. Raised the question of co-operating with other progressive parties (e.g., Liberals, Bloc Quebecois, Greens in Canada) and the use of preferential voting. Astoundingly, the NDP representative said they were more interested in winning the non-conservative vote, rather than working with other progressives. With regard to the second issue, the UK Labour Party (who took no position on the AV), representatives claimed the referendum would result in constituency changes, which was irrelevant. The second fringe event was with the Australian Secretarian for the United Nations International Year of Cooperatives, which recommended federal legislation for cooperatives and a ministerial level position in the federal government - a far more sensible approach.
Overall much of the conference was uncontroversial, and what was uncontroversial was good. From those issues where there was significant debate the outcomes were much less than optimal, but not so bad to be utterly disastrous (uranium sales and party reform issues were the worst decisions). Whilst in Sydney I also managed to engage in a small number of social activities and plenty of reading - however that will have to wait for a subsequent post.
My tweeting of said conference is available but in summary; Labor voted at add Marriage Equality to the platform, albeit with a conscience vote. Sen. de Bruyn, an extreme conservative, was soundly mocked on his rhetorical questions on this issue. Labor voted to support offshore processing of asylum seekers (which knocks on the head my appeal to the National Tribunal), however it also agreed to increase the refugee intake by some 45% to 20,000 and some significant changes to the detention and visa regime. On party reform, the Right was in disarray, and the Left didn't push the advantage, leading to a vague committment to more directed elected delegates. Finally, the party also voted to agree to the sale of uranium to India, a non-signatory to the NNPT.
Astute observers will notice with a 4% change in voting delegates would have produced very different outcomes, and the onus is on the Left, for once, to actually get that handful of numbers (about 1400 people and equivalent number of union delegates), especially in an environment where thousands have been leaving the Party. More importantly however, the Left has to win the ideological debate on the key issues. The Right did put up some fairly good arguments in favour of a conscience vote on marriage equality (e.g., the Marriage Act itself was subject to a conscience vote) and offshore processing (e.g., the loss of lives by those attempting asylum), and to a much lesser extent, the justifications for sale of uranium to India (e.g., economic development for Australia and India). Indeed, when one considers both the uranium and off-shore processing issue, there's a rather worrying anti-international relations agenda in place, assuming that once again Labor tries to export asylum seekers to a non-signatory to the Refugee Convention.
Also attended two of the fringe programe events; one on how progressives can win elections and another on the UN International Year of Cooperatives. The former included representatives from the NDP and the UK Labour Party. Raised the question of co-operating with other progressive parties (e.g., Liberals, Bloc Quebecois, Greens in Canada) and the use of preferential voting. Astoundingly, the NDP representative said they were more interested in winning the non-conservative vote, rather than working with other progressives. With regard to the second issue, the UK Labour Party (who took no position on the AV), representatives claimed the referendum would result in constituency changes, which was irrelevant. The second fringe event was with the Australian Secretarian for the United Nations International Year of Cooperatives, which recommended federal legislation for cooperatives and a ministerial level position in the federal government - a far more sensible approach.
Overall much of the conference was uncontroversial, and what was uncontroversial was good. From those issues where there was significant debate the outcomes were much less than optimal, but not so bad to be utterly disastrous (uranium sales and party reform issues were the worst decisions). Whilst in Sydney I also managed to engage in a small number of social activities and plenty of reading - however that will have to wait for a subsequent post.
Re: 2c
Re: 2c
Martin Luther King Jnr. made a very good comment along these lines:
Which comes back to that comment you made about Rudd not taking up the double dissolution for "the greatest moral challenge of our time". It was downhill from there for him. Yet, here we are with a price on emissions under Gillard's leadership.
Re: 2c
Re: 2c
Re: 2c
If he had called a DD I suspect it would have been won and won fairly convincingly.