Labor Party leadership
Dec. 3rd, 2003 04:08 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
tcpipThis post is friends-only, as I would be expelled from the Labor Party if I made it public.
The Australian Labor Party, in an act of political suicide, has chosen Mark Latham as its leader for the next Federal election.
I'm seriously thinking of voting Liberal.
The empirical evidence to date suggests Mark Latham is disliked by a lot of people and liked by a few. In contrast, very few actively dislike Kim Beazley, and a lot of voters think kindly of him. But if these are general statements for the Australian public they are even more extreme within the Australian Labor Party itself.
Latham is simply despised by huge sections the Labor Party membership. Enormous numbers of ordinary members will simply refuse to staff the stalls, do the letter-boxing, hand out the 'how-to-vote' cards. Why is this? Because Latham is a evangelical economic rationalist. Take the following statement:
"I believe in an upwardly mobile society where people can climb the rungs of opportunity, climbing the ladder of opportunity to a better life for themselves and their family. I believe in hard work."
Now this is an extraordinary remark from a leader of Party which once advocated the democratic socialisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange, that once fought a referundum to nationalise trading banks, that introduced free tertiary education, and is supposedly based on overcoming class disparities. But you can only have the "upwardly mobile" with "rungs" in a non-egalitarian society divided by "haves" and "have-nots" - as that's the sort of world which Latham supports.
Let me spell it out in simple terms. Latham wants to abolish the welfare system.
Or, in words I couldn't express better myself, the conclusion of Robert Manne's article
If Latham takes the Labor leadership tomorrow the ALP will gradually abandon interest in Aboriginal reconciliation. It will demonstrate a growing contempt for what Latham calls the left-wing "rights agenda". It will seek to match or outbid the Coalition on questions like the threat of terrorism, "illegal immigration" and the war on crime. Just as Tony Blair transformed the British Labour Party by incorporating Margaret Thatcher's economic ideas, if Latham succeeds in winning the ALP leadership he will attempt to incorporate into Labor Howard's brand of populist, cultural conservatism. After Blair, Britons could say "we are all Thatcherites now". If Latham wins the Labor leadership Australians may soon be able to remark: "We are all Howardites now."
If Beazley was leader, Labor would have won the next Federal election (unless Howard managed to organize yet another war). More importantly Beazley, commanding respect across the entire Party would have been able to organize the fifty-thousand or so volunteers that make up the backbone of the ALP.
There is no chance of that with Latham. The champagne corks must be popping across conservative households tonight. Truly, as Kim Beazley Snr once remarked, the Labor Party once was led by the cream of the working-class. Now it is led by the dregs of the middle-class.
Nota bene for my Canadian and U.S. and other overseas readers: The Liberal Party in Australia is dominated by conservatives. They are politically closer to the Reagan/Thatcher era than political liberalism.
The Australian Labor Party, in an act of political suicide, has chosen Mark Latham as its leader for the next Federal election.
I'm seriously thinking of voting Liberal.
The empirical evidence to date suggests Mark Latham is disliked by a lot of people and liked by a few. In contrast, very few actively dislike Kim Beazley, and a lot of voters think kindly of him. But if these are general statements for the Australian public they are even more extreme within the Australian Labor Party itself.
Latham is simply despised by huge sections the Labor Party membership. Enormous numbers of ordinary members will simply refuse to staff the stalls, do the letter-boxing, hand out the 'how-to-vote' cards. Why is this? Because Latham is a evangelical economic rationalist. Take the following statement:
"I believe in an upwardly mobile society where people can climb the rungs of opportunity, climbing the ladder of opportunity to a better life for themselves and their family. I believe in hard work."
Now this is an extraordinary remark from a leader of Party which once advocated the democratic socialisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange, that once fought a referundum to nationalise trading banks, that introduced free tertiary education, and is supposedly based on overcoming class disparities. But you can only have the "upwardly mobile" with "rungs" in a non-egalitarian society divided by "haves" and "have-nots" - as that's the sort of world which Latham supports.
Let me spell it out in simple terms. Latham wants to abolish the welfare system.
Or, in words I couldn't express better myself, the conclusion of Robert Manne's article
If Latham takes the Labor leadership tomorrow the ALP will gradually abandon interest in Aboriginal reconciliation. It will demonstrate a growing contempt for what Latham calls the left-wing "rights agenda". It will seek to match or outbid the Coalition on questions like the threat of terrorism, "illegal immigration" and the war on crime. Just as Tony Blair transformed the British Labour Party by incorporating Margaret Thatcher's economic ideas, if Latham succeeds in winning the ALP leadership he will attempt to incorporate into Labor Howard's brand of populist, cultural conservatism. After Blair, Britons could say "we are all Thatcherites now". If Latham wins the Labor leadership Australians may soon be able to remark: "We are all Howardites now."
If Beazley was leader, Labor would have won the next Federal election (unless Howard managed to organize yet another war). More importantly Beazley, commanding respect across the entire Party would have been able to organize the fifty-thousand or so volunteers that make up the backbone of the ALP.
There is no chance of that with Latham. The champagne corks must be popping across conservative households tonight. Truly, as Kim Beazley Snr once remarked, the Labor Party once was led by the cream of the working-class. Now it is led by the dregs of the middle-class.
Nota bene for my Canadian and U.S. and other overseas readers: The Liberal Party in Australia is dominated by conservatives. They are politically closer to the Reagan/Thatcher era than political liberalism.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-12-05 03:10 am (UTC)I've decided to take off the "friends only" security rating and run the risk of being dragged in front of the Disputes Tribunal if some headkicker from the Latham camp finds my comments objectionable and against the Party's public interest.
Heck, I find Latham against the Party's public interest, so I guess that's par for the course.
Seeming that his comments about George Bush and John Howard were about the only sensible things he's said so far, it's been impressive to see how quickly this leopard can change his spots.
Latham in bid to heal US wounds
"Mr Latham told ambassador Tom Schieffer that his judgements on the US would be different now that he was Opposition Leader. He said the US alliance was the first pillar of Labor's national security policy as it was fundamental to Australia's national interest."
Good one, knucklehead.