 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
David 
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
Omar, I think there's a lot of justification in what you say. Yes, I am a little lazy (which explains my terrible marks this year at uni), and yes, it takes a while to unlearn all the things which have been hammered into you over your childhood and adolescence. I think the same could be said for a lot of posters here, however.
It's my belief (here I go with another unresearched, unsubstantiated myth) that we are the people we are because of a mixture of our genes and our upbringings - not necessarily just our parents, but also our siblings, friends, teachers, environments, etc, etc. I would say our world views are largely a result of these upbringings (which of course can also take the form of a rebellion against parents' beliefs, or when it comes to our peers', non-conformism, or whatever).
So, having established that not every belief I have is based on anything more than my upbringing, Is it my duty to know what I'm talking about? Sorry, but I challenge you to find a poster on this site who has written a thesis on every issue they have ever commented on, or even done research on them all.
Still, when it comes to subjects that I am ignorant about, like global warming for example, I do not comment about them. Simply, because, I do not have enough information to form an opinion.
About things I DO possess strong opinions about, for example, abortion, I have not necessarily made an in-depth study on the development of the fetus or the history of women's rights... sometimes my opinion is simply a theoretical one based on common knowledge.
Still, in this case, I'm pretty sure I'm right, learning this fact as I did not from my parents, but my incredibly knowledgeable year 12 economics teacher (she was a staunch Labor supporter, by the way), and later backed up by my political science lecturer at uni, not to mention Canberra's sitting ALP member, Annette Ellis, in a question and answer session.
For skeptics, here's a link:
http://www.aph.gov.au/library/Pubs/rn/2005-06/06rn11.htm
| Quote: | | In the period of the study, 63% of floor crossers came from the Liberal Party, 26% from the National Party and 11% from the Labor Party. The small percentage from the Labor Party reflects the party’s particular emphasis on discipline where a formal pledge binds all Labor MPs to support the collective decisions of the Caucus. The last two Labor MPs to cross the floor—Senator George Georges in 1986 and Graeme Campbell MP in 1988—were both suspended from the party for their actions. |
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
 |
bwphantom 
It's Better to Burn Out Than to Fade Away
Joined: 15 Mar 2002
Location: Brisbane QLD
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I remember vividly when the 2 labor members crossed the floor. The Labor party had a conniption. Very funny to witness.
Now you can say all you want about Labor being Centre etc...but when it comes to opposing party views they are as left as they come.
Sure in conservative politics it is also frowned upon, but in most times is tolerated.
Socialists demand concurrence in all matters as it belies weakness.
_________________
All this may be summed up in one word - CHARACTER - and if that is not worth developing, nothing is.
Jock McHale |
|
|
|
|
sherrife 
Victorian Socialists - people before profit
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| bwphantom wrote: |
Socialists demand concurrence in all matters as it belies weakness. |
Socialists DO value clarity, but do not require universal agreement at all, and certainly do not (well, Socialist Alternative do not) think that plurality is a sign of weakness. In fact (like a truly democratic process would require), minority opinions and those who put them forward are always included in proportionally balanced leadership slates.
So lets say (radically, I know) a parliamentarian existed who was a member of Socialist Alternative, s/he would be only a delegate, and would vote according to what we, the party, decided in an earlier referendum. Obviously, the majority voice of that referendum would rule, but if we had 3 parliamentarians, then if the dissenting perspective had 30% of the votes, one of the parliamentarians would vote in that way.
_________________
I would be ashamed to admit that I had risen from the ranks. When I rise it will be with the ranks... - Eugene Debs |
|
|
|
|
bwphantom
It's Better to Burn Out Than to Fade Away
Joined: 15 Mar 2002
Location: Brisbane QLD
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| sherrife wrote: | | bwphantom wrote: |
Socialists demand concurrence in all matters as it belies weakness. |
Socialists DO value clarity, but do not require universal agreement at all, and certainly do not (well, Socialist Alternative do not) think that plurality is a sign of weakness. In fact (like a truly democratic process would require), minority opinions and those who put them forward are always included in proportionally balanced leadership slates.
So lets say (radically, I know) a parliamentarian existed who was a member of Socialist Alternative, s/he would be only a delegate, and would vote according to what we, the party, decided in an earlier referendum. Obviously, the majority voice of that referendum would rule, but if we had 3 parliamentarians, then if the dissenting perspective had 30% of the votes, one of the parliamentarians would vote in that way. |
Fair enough I will acknowledge and agree in respective to the point you have put across.
However, the labor Caucus and a sign of weakness is anyone crossing the floor.
Maybe I should have said 'The Australian Labor Party demands concurrence in all matters as it belies weakness'
Because for some reason people on here somehow believe that the Labor party is not a Socialist Party. 
_________________
All this may be summed up in one word - CHARACTER - and if that is not worth developing, nothing is.
Jock McHale |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| It's the majority voice of that referendum would rule but if we had 3 parliamentarians then if the dissenting perspective had 30% of the votes one of the parliamentarians would vote in that way or the me way. |
|
|
|
|
Alec. J. Hidell
Joined: 12 May 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | Northern Pie wrote: | | A member from either party should not have to follow party lines when voting on new laws or legislation, each member of parliament should just vote according to conscious, atm if they do not believe in a certain new law or legislation they have to physically cross the floor if the vote against their own party and if they do are put up for scorn and commit political suicide. |
Correct, in the case of the Australian Labor Party.
Which ever side of politics you're on, you've got to agree that the Liberal-National coalition have got it right in letting their MPs and senators cross the floor. Labor should do the same, in the interests of integrity and democracy. |
Does this prove my point about the lack of intelligence of some people on this board.
Simply research would indicate this is rubbish
_________________
The one man in the world, who never believes he is mad, is the madman. |
|
|
|
|
Alec. J. Hidell
Joined: 12 May 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| bwphantom wrote: | | sherrife wrote: | | bwphantom wrote: |
Socialists demand concurrence in all matters as it belies weakness. |
Socialists DO value clarity, but do not require universal agreement at all, and certainly do not (well, Socialist Alternative do not) think that plurality is a sign of weakness. In fact (like a truly democratic process would require), minority opinions and those who put them forward are always included in proportionally balanced leadership slates.
So lets say (radically, I know) a parliamentarian existed who was a member of Socialist Alternative, s/he would be only a delegate, and would vote according to what we, the party, decided in an earlier referendum. Obviously, the majority voice of that referendum would rule, but if we had 3 parliamentarians, then if the dissenting perspective had 30% of the votes, one of the parliamentarians would vote in that way. |
Fair enough I will acknowledge and agree in respective to the point you have put across.
However, the labor Caucus and a sign of weakness is anyone crossing the floor.
Maybe I should have said 'The Australian Labor Party demands concurrence in all matters as it belies weakness'
Because for some reason people on here somehow believe that the Labor party is not a Socialist Party. |
And yet when one thinks it just can't get any more sillier, up steps a new challenger
_________________
The one man in the world, who never believes he is mad, is the madman. |
|
|
|
|
nomadjack
Joined: 27 Apr 2006
Location: Essendon
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Northern Pie wrote: |
I think when voting occurs that each member has a "yay" or "nay" button to press at their seat and the result of the vote remains secret as to who casted what vote, not naming names, just a raw result based upon the individual members thoughts and feelings, I feel this is maybe just one possible way that Party line voting can be abolished, but I certainly don't have all the answers.......I will leave that to Francis!
Cheers |
If voting becomes secret like you propose how do we as voters hold those we elect accountable? We would have no way of knowing how our representatives voted on any given issue. As long as candidates run under a party label they should be bound to follow party policy unless it's an issue of conscience on which the parties grant a free vote.
Interesting article David. Nice to see well-researched opinions.  Although you really overplay the extent to which the parties differ. As Warhurst describes in the article:
"Current Coalition MPs still argue that, in certain circumstances, they are entitled to cross the floor.(16) However, the figures above confirm that ‘the modern Liberal Party just as much as Labor, comes down very hard on dissent’.(17)"
Think you will find the quote from Michael Ronaldson that closes the article is closer to reflecting the Liberal position:
"[I] have always been a passionate believer in the sanctity of the party room … I am just so passionately and vehemently opposed to the option of crossing the floor. I actually think it’s gutless … you [are] there as part of a team.(19)"
Think you will find that the different frequency of floor crossings between Libs and ALP are as much about the greater ideological division within the Liberal Party (esp between true liberals and conservatives) than within Labor. In regards to this, it would be very interesting to see what issues the crossings related to.
I think I've asked you before Phantom (without result), but is there any chance you could actually describe any of these supposedly 'socialist' policies that the ALP stands for? Just a couple will do. |
|
|
|
|
bwphantom
It's Better to Burn Out Than to Fade Away
Joined: 15 Mar 2002
Location: Brisbane QLD
|
| Post subject: | |
|
What amazes me is that all of you so called Labor aligned people know very little of its history.
So I will give you a clue. Does the year 1921 ring any bells???
Ding dong the bell is ringing.
OR would you rather me just spell it out.
I agree that the labor Party has moved more towards social liberalism (you have Whitlam to thank for that) and this wrested power back from the liberals. Hawke and Keating knew they had to willingly embrace market and quasi-market mechanisms to achieve their policy objectives. They shifted Labor’s focus from short term reform to long term electoral success. Their justification was that enduring reform required the Party to be in Government for the long term; and that governments achieve little by alienating the electorate.
The current Leader of the Australian Labor party has quoted that he is a Christian Socialist, and his Deputy also has strong Socialist ties.
The ALP is historically committed to socialism, but has been inconsistent in both theory and practice in this regard, it has moved so much towards Liberalism that they are just a mirrored reflection of the Coalition.
_________________
All this may be summed up in one word - CHARACTER - and if that is not worth developing, nothing is.
Jock McHale |
|
|
|
|
nomadjack
Joined: 27 Apr 2006
Location: Essendon
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| bwphantom wrote: | What amazes me is that all of you so called Labor aligned people know very little of its history.
So I will give you a clue. Does the year 1921 ring any bells???
Ding dong the bell is ringing.
OR would you rather me just spell it out.
I agree that the labor Party has moved more towards social liberalism (you have Whitlam to thank for that) and this wrested power back from the liberals. Hawke and Keating knew they had to willingly embrace market and quasi-market mechanisms to achieve their policy objectives. They shifted Labor’s focus from short term reform to long term electoral success. Their justification was that enduring reform required the Party to be in Government for the long term; and that governments achieve little by alienating the electorate.
The current Leader of the Australian Labor party has quoted that he is a Christian Socialist, and his Deputy also has strong Socialist ties.
The ALP is historically committed to socialism, but has been inconsistent in both theory and practice in this regard, it has just moved so much towards Liberalism that they are just a mirrored reflection of the Coalition. |
My history is fine Phantom, it even extends to something called the Blackburn Declaration. Again, if you could point to a socialist policy currently held by the party I'd be much obliged. |
|
|
|
|
bwphantom
It's Better to Burn Out Than to Fade Away
Joined: 15 Mar 2002
Location: Brisbane QLD
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| nomadjack wrote: | | bwphantom wrote: | What amazes me is that all of you so called Labor aligned people know very little of its history.
So I will give you a clue. Does the year 1921 ring any bells???
Ding dong the bell is ringing.
OR would you rather me just spell it out.
I agree that the labor Party has moved more towards social liberalism (you have Whitlam to thank for that) and this wrested power back from the liberals. Hawke and Keating knew they had to willingly embrace market and quasi-market mechanisms to achieve their policy objectives. They shifted Labor’s focus from short term reform to long term electoral success. Their justification was that enduring reform required the Party to be in Government for the long term; and that governments achieve little by alienating the electorate.
The current Leader of the Australian Labor party has quoted that he is a Christian Socialist, and his Deputy also has strong Socialist ties.
The ALP is historically committed to socialism, but has been inconsistent in both theory and practice in this regard, it has just moved so much towards Liberalism that they are just a mirrored reflection of the Coalition. |
My history is fine Phantom, it even extends to something called the Blackburn Declaration. Again, if you could point to a socialist policy currently held by the party I'd be much obliged. |
I believe this point shows the current ALP.
| Quote: | | The ALP is historically committed to socialism, but has been inconsistent in both theory and practice in this regard, it has just moved so much towards Liberalism that they are just a mirrored reflection of the Coalition. |
Oh and Frank I am surprised you can even read what is on your monitor with all that love juice in the way. 
_________________
All this may be summed up in one word - CHARACTER - and if that is not worth developing, nothing is.
Jock McHale |
|
|
|
|
nomadjack
Joined: 27 Apr 2006
Location: Essendon
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| So you've got nothing then? BTW the use of the word 'historically' kind of undermines the point you are trying to make. |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Where did you've get nothing? |
|
|
|
|
Donny 
Formerly known as MAGFAN8.
Joined: 04 Aug 2002
Location: Toonumbar NSW Australia
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | Still, when it comes to subjects that I am ignorant about, like global warming for example, I do not comment about them. Simply, because, I do not have enough information to form an opinion. |
But you DID join my CAN (climate action network) *site to learn about the issue/associated issues. How are you progressing ?
*For anyone else who's interested, here's the link: www.kyoglecan.com
_________________
Donny.
It's a game. Enjoy it.  |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Frank Stone wrote: | | David wrote: | | Northern Pie wrote: | | A member from either party should not have to follow party lines when voting on new laws or legislation, each member of parliament should just vote according to conscious, atm if they do not believe in a certain new law or legislation they have to physically cross the floor if the vote against their own party and if they do are put up for scorn and commit political suicide. |
Correct, in the case of the Australian Labor Party.
Which ever side of politics you're on, you've got to agree that the Liberal-National coalition have got it right in letting their MPs and senators cross the floor. Labor should do the same, in the interests of integrity and democracy. |
Does this prove my point about the lack of intelligence of some people on this board.
Simply research would indicate this is rubbish |
So, did you post this before or after you clicked on the link? Or was my simple research too simple?
A lot of people seem to read a post all eager to dispute the factual basis behind it (which in this case, seems pretty sound), when it really wasn't even the important point. The point is, I believe the ability to cross the floor is a healthy reflection on our political system - however, I will happily listen to someone who believes this is not the case (as the guy quoted in nomadjack's post argues). That's all I want (plus perhaps a bit of a topic for all the ALP groupies to chew on).
| Quote: | But you DID join my CAN (climate action network) *site to learn about the issue/associated issues. How are you progressing ?
*For anyone else who's interested, here's the link: www.kyoglecan.com |
Donny, I did join that board in hope of supporting your site and hopefully getting into some debate about global warming, but I really haven't put much of an effort into it at this point. It is something I will tackle at my own pace... but in the meantime I would strongly encourage others to visit, as it is a well-constructed page, and also has some amazing pictures in some of the threads.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
