Is it time for a new political party to replace labor?

[silverfaun]

After the fiasco of the last six years, the total failure of the Whitlam govt having to be sacked & the miasma of Hawke blundering drukenly through his tenure is it time for the Labor party to disappear just like the Democrats?

The never ending problem for the Liberal/ National parties having to do the hard yards trying to balance the books, pay down the debt, of a wastrel Labor party mentality leaving behind the bottom of the chook pen mess every single time they are in govt.

It's time a new party emerged, free of the criminal union stranglehold, a party that has no strings to be pulled, a party who has to stand on it's own two feet, a party who can hold it's own without the lunatic Greens having to sweep them into office with their preferences.

Labor has done nothing to redress the problems that saw them sacked by the people, they haven't looked at the entrenched apparatchik politiking that saw them wiped out, they will fail every time they are in power if they don't get some values other than power for it's own sake.

[silverfaun]

I don't know about the CIR, I don't read a lot of the fringe or off the wall blogs or magazines & online publications, It's frightening out there just how bad the hate is for anything that isn't left. I tend to stick with mainstram publishers & read a lot of political biographies written by both sides of the fence.

I get frustrated when all I get in response to a premise is judgement like "death penalty, work choices" and any other pet slur that leftists can think of rather than a concise answer as to what went so wrong with Labor & why it has failed so many times.

Why it isn't the preferred political party of this country like the Lib/Nat party is & always has been.

I did not write this to defend or deny what the Lib/Nats are having to deal with at this precise time I'm talking historically & recent history of the whole failure of Labor Federally & state.

The only 2 States left in Labors hands is Tasmania & SA & we all know what dire straits they are in. Tasmania is practically a failed state & SA has a mendicant mentality & has done for years.

[i-need-a-martini]

While the Abbott govt is self-imploding and causing untold damage to our coutry, you think we should find an alternative to the Labor Party???

These disaters aren't just about a new govt finding its feet silverfaun. This is out and out incompetence in every endeavour they are involved in. I can't recall a single newly elected govt that has fallen apart nor done as much damage so quickly.

And you think Labor should be replaced? 

Hysterical.

[silverfaun]

Is this the most ridiculous reply on this subject or what?

[colic2bullsgirlore]

The premise of the amount perceived hate and why, I believe lay in the reason that the coalition was originally

formed.

That reason being (IMO) that none of the political parties that form the coalition

can form a federal government singularly

whereas the the Labor party can and does do just that.

Therefore the grassroots supporters of Labor are far greater in number and more one party orientated 9like minded in

their ideals) as compared to the grass roots supporters for a coalition government who byvery definition of the coalition

will hold more varying and in some cases opposing positions.

Do you agree with and support all of the ideals of Tha National Party, CLP and LNP?

If you answer Yes then I would opine that you are in the minority of coalition supporters.

if you answer No... then there you have your answer as per perceived hate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_%28Australia%29

Try and google and find a straight answer as to why the coalition as a political party was formed

[colic2bullsgirlore]

An excerpt from  the Wiki coalition entry

The extent to which these parties are in alliance varies at state and territory level.

At one extreme, the National Party of Western Australia and The Nationals South Australia currently compete alongside the Liberals, while the CLP and LNP, contesting elections only in the Northern Territory and Queensland, respectively, were formed from mergers of Liberal and National state branches.

A Liberal–National merger at national level has been proposed on several occasions, without much progress.

Background

Coalition arrangements are facilitated by Australia's preferential voting systems which enable Liberals and Nationals to compete locally in "three-cornered-contests", with the Australian Labor Party (ALP), while exchanging preferences in elections. Such contests would weaken their prospects under first past the post voting.

From time to time, friction is caused by the fact that the Liberal and National candidates are campaigning against each other, usually without undue long-term damage to the relationship.

Indeed, the whole point of introducing preferential voting was to allow safe spoiler-free three-cornered contests.

It was a government of the forerunner to the modern Liberal party that introduced the legislation, following Labor's win at the 1918 Swan by-election where the conservative vote split.

Two months later, a by-election held under preferential voting caused the initially leading ALP candidate to lose after some lower-placed candidates' preferences had been distributed.

As a result of variations on the preferential voting system used in every state and territory, the Coalition has been able to thrive, wherever both its member parties have both been active.

The preferential voting system has allowed the Liberal and National parties to compete and co-operate at the same time.

By contrast, a variation of the preferential system known as Optional Preferential Voting has proven a significant handicap to coalition co-operation in Queensland and New South Wales, because significant numbers of voters do not express all useful preferences.

#############################################################################################

United we stand divided we fall. and all that jazz

[silverfaun]

Thank you for your considered reply but it is flawed because the Labor party brook no dissent from their members whereas the Coalition is allowed to have an opinion that differs from the party line.

A good case in point was the Cheryl Kernot experiment. After being seduced into the Labor party by Gareth Evans (we'll say no more on that) she was appalled that any previous views she held were shut down & when she complained the party saw to it that she lost her seat.

The rewriting of history to suit the current Labor views has always been a fault. The mythmaking,  the harking back to the so called "Labor values" is a trite hackneyed mantra that nobody believes anymore. It's about power & control. No offense.

[colic2bullsgirlore]

with respect most voters are not members therefore in turn most supporters (grass root or not) are also not members.

I lobby my local elected representative regardless of their party predeliction and expect the same service regardless of who

I voted for previously.

Happy to disagree because that is part of a healthy debate.

Why do you think the coalition was formed but despite best efforts still refuse to integrate??

[silverfaun]

It's a healthy coalition with differing views & that can only be a good thing. The country voters felt they were ignored by Canberra & the Country Party was formed to give them a voice that didn't reflect the inner city elites who couldn't care less about the rural voters.

There is all kind of hypotheses as to why the coalition has been so successful but the main one is they are not constrained or held to ransom by militants.

The Union movement in Labor wield too much power to ratio of union members & they are losing union members every day.

This is a deadly combination for Labor because they have a stranglehold on the party. We only have to see the last 2 labor PM's who were removed by the union heavies. Rudd because he was not a "true believer" had no time for the union junta & no core values, whereas Gillard was a puppet for the unions & had been all her life but Shorten & his union faction still removed her.

This is kindergarten stuff, I'm sure all Labor adherents know this, but sadly, refuse to reform or even push for reform to bring the Party into the 21st century not shackled by union heavies.

Rudd wanted this but they destroyed him (twice) they will keep doing it until the party releases itself from the chains of union heavies & warring factions.

This is all out there, talked about, discussed but nothing ever happens, Even the farcical primary vote was an insult, has been jettisoned already.  Albo was clearly the best candidate to lead the party back from oblivion but here we have Bill, watching him in Parliament is like being slapped around the head with a limp sardine.

They have given up on that already, what kind of mental giant thought it would last? it was shoved through by Rudd to ensure they could never sack him again if he won.

Watching Bill give interviews you can actually see him searching for some kind of response that doesn't sound stupid but it's patently obvious he has not cut through & never will, too much baggage.

[colic2bullsgirlore]

Thinking about it I see a strange parity in the underlying reasons why McMahon lost the election to Whitlam taking

into consideration his predecessor John Gorton's rise and fall and the subsequent sacking by Malcolm Fraser to the reasons

why Labor lost the 2013 election.

Do you?

and

I wonder whether the present (seemingly similar) situation will see the coalition suffer the same fate?

[poddster]

---

@lakeland27 wrote:

labor are going nowhere but back to the lodge at the end of abbott points term . all of yer modoch vitreol won't save him and the libs from electoral wipeout. he's finished already dearie

---

Being Friday the 13th.  We all needed a bit of a chuckle, Thanks LL