Labor should revolt, where are they? where's the outrage for this?

[silverfaun]

Where are they? all the Labor supporters on here? I haven't heard a peep, not a whimper about the sweeping changes Rudd wants to make to the democracy of the parliament.

Is it the same as the cowardly cringing that went on, the sickening acquiescence to the crushing discrimination laws Roxon wanted or the attack on the freedom of the press & curtailing of our freedom of speech Conroy wanted that all the luvvies supported.

To their shame they supported them & then not a word when the hammer finally dropped on these 2 bills & Labor abandoned them.

Where are the screams & howls of protest at what Rudd wants to do, where are the true believers who believe in the power of their collective strength & the rights of the rank & file? to ensconce himself into the leadership that the party may never be able to move him from unless they cross the floor en masse & bring him & any future leaders down on the floor of the Parliament their only option?.

Is this the price Labor are willing to pay to win just 1 election, is this the high price to our democratic parliamentary values they are willing to abrogate just to cling onto one more term?

Are all Labor supporters on here going to sit quiet & say nothing about this. Where's the outrage about this abomination or is just whinging about perceived sexism all they're good for these days or pathetic nit picking.

"Excerpt from main article:

Added to this short-term, deeply political decision-making is the undeniable enjoyment Rudd would get in watching colleagues vote for a change of party rules that effectively amounted to a repudiation of their collective action in ousting him back in 2010. One final kick in the teeth for Gillard and the so-called faceless men, as it were.

This reform also puts the Labor Party at the potential mercy of an individual leader (ironic for the party of the collective workers), and it even increases the likelihood of a party split at some time in the future. For example, if one major faction within the Labor Party continued to support a PM it would be highly unlikely that the remainder of the party would be able to collectively achieve the 75 per cent quota required to oust the leader.

This is just one of a raft of unintended consequences Labor is exposing itself to

.

Theoretically the reform Rudd wants his caucus to endorse means voters could keep on re-electing a leader of the Labor Party who enjoyed the support of only one-quarter of its parliamentary team, even though that same leader pursued policies totally at odds with the brand of the party they led."

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/sweeping-powers-create-dictatorship/story-e6frg6zo-122667855...

[freakiness]

---

@silverfaun wrote:

I did refer back to the acceptance of the toxic Roxon & Conroy bills that no Labor supporter on here seemed to have a problem with. Yes my language probably is insulting  to the Labor supporters on here but the truth is never palatable & the medicine is bitter.

---

Actually it is YOUR OPINION not truth!

[monman12]

LL, I deliberately included this  in my post :

"It would appear, no it is fact, that when a juicy "safe seat"  is on offer the local apparatchiks rarely have a say in who will be selected/occupy it......," that is bi-political ( or should it be tri/multi?) and  not a mention of sisters in Lalor, in an attempt to placte some here, even though Lalor seems to have a few of them candidating.

PS

How utterly depressing living in a safe seat electorate (both colours LL), wherein you know that any considered  exercise of one's political franchise is ineffective,  as it will be overwhelmed by the mindless bleats/baas  of the majority mindless Myopians.

nɥºɾ

[izabsmiling]

Thanks for accepting my appology SF .

I think that your no1 concern is getting Tony Abbott elected ? If that is the case perhaps not attacking those with a tendency to vote the other way may be a better political tactic ? 

I know that some may respond to fear and attack and simply shift their vote as they feel less attacked or as a result of hyped up fear...we aren't all like that though.

as far as this ;

Is it the same as the cowardly cringing that went on, the sickening acquiescence to the crushing discrimination laws Roxon wanted or the attack on the freedom of the press & curtailing of our freedom of speech Conroy wanted that all the luvvies supported.

to discuss this rationally (as such an important things should be ..don't you agree?) people would first need to know more...to know how things stand ,what that means (ie;the consequences) and to understand how and in what way any changes actually would affect us ....good ,bad or indifferent.

Firstly we need to get it clear that our Media ,just like us has 

Freedom of speech ...(WITHIN the bounds of the Law)

The Rule of Law is part of our democracy 

[i-need-a-martini]

to discuss this rationally (as such an important things should be ..don't you agree?) people would first need to know more...to know how things stand ,what that means (ie;the consequences) and to understand how and in what way any changes actually would affect us ....good ,bad or indifferent.

Don't hold your breath Iza.

I already asked the OP to explain what the changes meant and why we shouldn't want them right at the start (post 7). As usual when it came to the crucnch there was no response.

Typically, we only get the broad statements and never any detail. That's why it is never worth debating because you can't actually determine what they know on the subject.

[lakeland27]

sorry nɥºɾ i should be more attentive or read more closely .

[monman12]

IS, I agree with some of your comments above,  however,  I formed the opinion that some here had never bothered to read the actual Conroy proposed media "reforms", or even Roxon's five anti-discrimination acts, one of which required,  without thought,  that it be "unlawful to offend or insult people"

IS: "Firstly we need to get it clear that our Media ,just like us has Freedom of speech ...(WITHIN the bounds of the Law)
The Rule of Law is part of our democracy "

However,  there were concerns about using federal law for the first time to create a statutory authority to oversee the print media, and "the sweeping authority of the advocate, whose decisions to block a merger or media investment cannot be appealed on their merits through the courts."

Interesting "Rule of Law" ensuring no right of appeal through the courts!

LL, sadly I live in a safe Victorian  Lib seat, Goldstein, which might produce some mixed reactions here,  because  Vida Goldstein, "was an early feminist parliamentary candidate". I only copied that  honest,  I would have written: "was an early woman parliamentary candidate."

nɥºɾ

[lakeland27]

i do understand . i lived in safe seats for many years, Sturt being one. where i am now is more marginal, and possibly better for it.

[freakiness]

---

@monman12 wrote:

LL, sadly I live in a safe Victorian  Lib seat, Goldstein, which might produce some mixed reactions here,  because  Vida Goldstein, "was an early feminist parliamentary candidate". I only copied that  honest,  I would have written: "was an early woman parliamentary candidate."

nɥºɾ

---

Monman nobody complained or commented about using such words as feminist in a non deragatory manner.

[smithie12]

I think Rudd only got in because of the sympathy vote being kicked out by Julia.  When she started to loose in the polls, Rudd was the only choice for Labor, as a replacement.

Tony Abbott is not the best choice the liberals could have put forward.  Probably doesn't matter, the liberals will get in anyway next time because everyone has had a gut full of labor.

[lakeland27]

smithie a lot of people spell Lose loosely. including some board regulars ay ?