Shorten wants to cut ties with Socialism

[catsnknots]

Sorry Boris..... I guess you might need to find a new party..... 

BILL Shorten wants to restart debate on whether Labor should maintain its near-century-long commitment to democratic socialism and is open to removing the symbolic mission statement from the party’s constitution.

Although few inside Labor are prepared to call for Labor’s 1921 socialist objective to be abolished, former prime minister Paul Keating says it is no longer relevant. “It’s now such an anachronistic description of what we are or need to be as to not warrant any continuing ­attachment,” Mr Keating says in a new book. “Of course it should be abolished.”

The socialist objective describes Labor as “a democratic socialist party” and binds members to support “the democratic socialisation of industry, production, distribution and exchange, to the extent necessary to eliminate exploitation ... in these fields”.

The Opposition Leader is welcoming debate as part of his plans to rebuild Labor. He has described it to colleagues as being “as useful as a 100-year-old street directory” and of little value in economic policymaking. Although Mr Shorten does not see abolishing the objective as a priority, and ­acknowledges there is a range of views inside the party, sources say he does not see it as relevant to the party’s future.

At a Fabian Society forum in Sydney tomorrow, opposition Treasury spokesman Chris Bowen will reiterate his call for the objective to be abolished. “It’s time to scrap the socialist objective and have a clear, concise and modern explanation of Labor’s governing philosophy,” Mr Bowen writes in his book Hearts and Minds. “We can’t expect the public to be clear about what Labor stands for if we are not clear about this ourselves.”

However, many on Labor’s Left are opposed. ALP national president Jenny McAlister, from the Left, told The Australian she did not support altering the party’s core objective. “We should always be open to refreshing our philosophy and approach.

“My starting point in any debate will be support for social democracy.”

In an interview for Rudd, Gillard and Beyond, Mr Shorten said he did not describe himself as a “classical socialist” and did not support state ownership of the means of production.

The current objective was adopted three decades after the party was founded. It has long been contested and open to interpretation. In 1951, Labor resolved to pursue it only “to the extent necessary”.

The word “democratic” was added in 1957. A review in 1981 led to keeping the objective. Gough Whitlam, Bob Hawke and Kevin Rudd have also voiced support for the ­objective to be replaced.

Troy Bramston is the author of Rudd, Gillard and Beyond (Penguin)

[nero_bolt]

[lakeland27]

and the fascists likewise

[i-need-a-martini]

Catmad.

I seem to have missed the giant leap made in your OP.

Where exactly has Bill Shorten stated that he will formally remove the socialist democratic objective from Lbors charter?

[freakiness]

---

@catsnknots wrote:

Sorry Boris..... I guess you might need to find a new party..... 

BILL Shorten wants to restart debate on whether Labor should maintain its near-century-long commitment to democratic socialism and is open to removing the symbolic mission statement from the party’s constitution.

Although few inside Labor are prepared to call for Labor’s 1921 socialist objective to be abolished, former prime minister Paul Keating says it is no longer relevant. “It’s now such an anachronistic description of what we are or need to be as to not warrant any continuing ­attachment,” Mr Keating says in a new book. “Of course it should be abolished.”

The socialist objective describes Labor as “a democratic socialist party” and binds members to support “the democratic socialisation of industry, production, distribution and exchange, to the extent necessary to eliminate exploitation ... in these fields”.

---

I think it's desirable that all parties and organizations review their mission statements from time to time. 

What do you see as being wrong with that?

*scrap that, I failed to notice it was a C&P before asking the question.

[spotweldersfriend]

They can take the anti science brigade with them.And the economic rationalists:)

[catsnknots]

---

@freakiness wrote:

---

@catsnknots wrote:

Sorry Boris..... I guess you might need to find a new party..... 

BILL Shorten wants to restart debate on whether Labor should maintain its near-century-long commitment to democratic socialism and is open to removing the symbolic mission statement from the party’s constitution.

Although few inside Labor are prepared to call for Labor’s 1921 socialist objective to be abolished, former prime minister Paul Keating says it is no longer relevant. “It’s now such an anachronistic description of what we are or need to be as to not warrant any continuing ­attachment,” Mr Keating says in a new book. “Of course it should be abolished.”

The socialist objective describes Labor as “a democratic socialist party” and binds members to support “the democratic socialisation of industry, production, distribution and exchange, to the extent necessary to eliminate exploitation ... in these fields”.

---

I think it's desirable that all parties and organizations review their mission statements from time to time. 

What do you see as being wrong with that?

*scrap that, I failed to notice it was a C&P before asking the question.

---

I see nothing wrong with it at all... I think it is a good thing and will bring Labor into the modern era... if we are going to have two major parties then we need two good ones as each one will take it's turn at leading... I would hope that Labor can grow into a better party and manage itself better and the policies it introduces... 

The issue I have is that the Labor party have great ideas but they don't always have the skill to introduce it within a budget that is reasonable. Classic examples are the NBN written on the back of a coaster and costed at what was it??? $4 billion?? and look at the cost now... and the Pick Batts scheme...a great idea that was positive but look at the outcome of that disaster. 

And Medicare... great idea but can we still afford to give everyone free access?? Even the Dr's say no and charge extra to the majority of people. 

Great ideas... 

and the point of the OP was really to let Boris know that the socialist ideal she has in the labor party is probably not going to be on Labors to do list for much longer... just letting her know. 

[freakiness]

---

@catsnknots wrote:

The issue I have is that the Labor party have great ideas but they don't always have the skill to introduce it within a budget that is reasonable. Classic examples are the NBN written on the back of a coaster and costed at what was it??? $4 billion?? and look at the cost now... and the Pick Batts scheme...a great idea that was positive but look at the outcome of that disaster. 

---

The NBN is not something that was "written on the back of a coaster".

The FTTP version was never costed at $4B.  That would be the failed FTTN version that the panel of experts told the govt was a waste of money and funds would be better spent on a more future proof model.  Have you looked at the spending on the NBN?  It was good value for money, unlike the hotch potch network we're going to be lumbered with now that will cost almost as much to build, much more to operate and in maintenance, be worth less on completion and will need replacing bsfore it's complete.

The insulation scheme was not the disaster it is being sold as either..  

[poddster]

Shorten wants to cut ties with Socialism

I would agree with that if it was not just weasel words without any substance

[boris1gary]

no need to apologise to me catmad. You seem to be under the impression that I am a social democrat. I am not. I have never been a member of any social democratic party.

The socialist objective describes Labor as “a democratic socialist party” and binds members to support “the democratic socialisation of industry, production, distribution and exchange, to the extent necessary to eliminate exploitation ... in these fields”.

It would be appropriate for ALP to remove this from their platform as they haven't been a party of this ideal for many, many years.