ALBO AS LEADER OF THE LABOR PARTY.
A true leader with the courage to do what is right for all Australians.
You can always trust that ALBO WILL NOT LET YOU DOWN.

The Fairness Test - - The Australian Independent Media Network

The Fairness Test - - The Australian Independent Media Network

The Fairness Test

• 
  
  June 24, 2014
  
• 
  Written by:
  Kay Rollison
  

• 
  Category: Politics
• 
  permalink
  
  
  
• 
  
  
  Kay Rollison
  
  
  
  

I recently wrote an open letter to Bill Shorten,
expressing my dismay at three particular policy stances the Labor party
has adopted – continuation of off-shore processing for asylum seekers,
support for the school chaplaincy program and for Abbott’s Green Army. I
wanted the party to show more leadership on such issues, and also to
have a more consultative way of coming to important policy decisions. My
post got lots of comments, with most people agreeing that these
decisions were disappointing, and urging Bill Shorten to be more
decisive in his opposition to the Abbott government. A few people went
further, suggesting that the Labor party is now a lost cause: ‘a pox on
both your parties’ they say.


I certainly don’t agree with this. Who else are you going the vote
for? The Palmer United Party – naked self-interest barely clothed with
populism? The Greens – worthy, but nowhere near in a position to form a
government until they learn that ideological purity is more suited to
activism than government? We need a strong and united progressive voice
and the only party able to offer this is Labor, now with around 40% of the vote.
We need the Labor party to become a formidable opposition and the
popular choice at the next election. And while I’m on this topic, I
don’t think that Bill Shorten alone can save the party; the messiah view
of political leadership is illusionary – just look at how Abbott as the
conservative saviour is working out.


I’ve heard several explanations for the opposition’s apparent lack of
drive at the moment. One is that the party is trying to avoid the
negativity associated with Abbott’s leadership of the opposition.
Another is that no party should reveal its policies too far out from an
election for fear that they are stolen, or otherwise countered. While
there doesn’t look to be much chance that this government will steal
from anyone other than the Tea Party, these arguments have some
validity. Furthermore, there’s the ‘don’t interrupt your opponent when
he’s making mistakes’ line, or in other words, be a small target and
coast to victory on the unpopularity of the government, as Abbott did in
2013. There’s probably truth in the old adage that governments lose
elections, rather than oppositions winning them. But all this
conventional wisdom is politics-as-usual stuff. It allows – even
encourages – the conventional mainstream media to frame Australian
politics as a horse race between two essentially similar parties. It
allows them to claim that Labor has no defining narrative, and that the
two parties are as bad as each other. And that’s the more progressive of
the mainstream media.


So what is to be done? Clearly Labor can’t come up with a full suite
of ready-made alternative policies at this point in time. Bill Shorten
has said that party renewal and increased membership are the priority
this year; policy review is for next year. Even so, there are a whole
raft of policies inherited from the Gillard/Rudd government that Labor
would presumably want to retain, including the full version of Gonski,
the NDIS, superannuation changes and so on. There is much that they
would want to reverse, most notably the Medicare co-payment and the
denial of unemployment benefits to people under 30. But then there are
other decisions that aren’t so straightforward, given the damage already
done, such as putting a price back on carbon, reviving the Clean Energy
Fund and the NBN, and re-funding higher education. Would they reverse
Abbott’s Paid Parental Leave scheme – assuming it ever gets through the
Parliament? Given the problems with the revenue side of the budget,
Labor might feel tempted to keep some of the revenue raising measures of
the current government, such as the changes to the pension age, and the
indexing of some benefits to inflation. And they will have to counter
Liberal scare tactics over returning the budget to surplus. In addition,
Labor needs to respond to the daily barrage of ideologically driven
conservative economic and social measures emerging from the Abbott
government.


This all sounds like a terribly difficult task. But I don’t think it
has to be that hard. It is not true that Labor doesn’t have a narrative.
It’s only true that they don’t always successfully put it front and
centre. As it says in the ALP’s platform:


At the core of Labor’s history, beliefs and aspirations is the need to make sure everybody gets a fair go.


A Labor narrative based on fairness is a no-brainer.


What I suggest is that Labor adopts ‘the fairness test’ as a measure for everything it says and does.


First, it gives a clear basis for opposition. It isn’t negative,
because it is based on a positive value and a stated position that can
be logically defended. It isn’t a scare tactic – it’s merely pointing
out consequences – ie increasing inequality – if certain measures are
adopted. Which of the Abbott government’s budget measures should be
opposed? Whichever of them don’t meet the fairness test, which, let’s
face it is almost all of them. Is the Medicare co-payment fair? No,
because it hurts to most vulnerable people in society. Are the changes
to higher education funding fair? No, because they decrease equality of
opportunity.  Is the high income levy fair? Yes, because it asks for a
contribution from those best able to afford it who are, moreover, the
ones already benefiting from other government policies such as the
failure adequately to tax the super earnings of the rich. Some examples
aren’t quite as straightforward; should Labor support the increased
excise on petrol? Probably not, because although it may result in less
petrol being used, and therefore lower carbon emissions, it’s not fair
that ordinary motorists should pay when large carbon emitters like
electricity generator don’t have to. This one’s arguable – but at least
the grounds for argument are clear. What is different from what already
happens? Labor members use the phrase ‘the fairness test’ when they ask
question, speak in Parliament, to the press or in their constituencies.
It becomes as much identified with Labor as ‘great big tax’ was with the
Coalition.


Second, it gives clear guidance for policy development. It already
does, as can be seen from the past policies of the party when in
government and in its National Platform. Gonski, NDIS, NBN – the list of
policies designed to increase equality of opportunity is extensive. But
it needs to be touchstone for the development of new, or modification
of existing policies: child care and aged care spring to mind. It should
also drive decisions about revenue raising. A fairness test demands
that a Labor government be an activist government, as opposed to the
small government mantra of the Liberals, which only benefits those
already privileged.


And when the next election comes around, the fairness test also helps
with decisions about which policies deserve the greatest prominence.
Policies most obviously designed to promote equality of opportunity and
to decrease social and economic inequality must be at the forefront.
Labor should not pander to the policy priorities of the Coalition, such
as balancing the budget at any social and economic cost, or decreasing
taxes for the already well-off at the expense of government spending on
health and education. The fairness test would not be an election slogan;
it would be a coherent message about what Labor stands for that runs
through all the policies it has consulted on and developed long before
the actual election campaign begins.


However much you might dislike the idea of a three word slogan, it is
clear this simple sound bite communication strategy was successful for
the Abbott opposition.  What I want to see it that ‘the fairness test’
becomes associated in the public mind with the Labor party. That it
becomes, if you like, the Labor brand. Labor already has the policies it
needs to support this overarching narrative. So now they just need the
words. A short, concise, simple way to frame Labor’s values. The
fairness test. As a Labor voter, I would happily wear this on a T-Shirt.
Would you?


Also by Kay Rollison:


Framing the budget


Queuing Up


Sloppy Journalism from Laura Tingle


Centre for Right-wing Apologist Politics (CRAP)

Dear Bill: Don't let yourself be Romneyed

Dear Bill: Don't let yourself be Romneyed

Michael Galvin 24 June 2014, 8:00am 38

Politics

(Image by John Graham / johngraham.alphalink.com.au)

Michael
Galvin sends a message to Opposition Leader Bill Shorten, pleading with
him to show courage not to become Australia's version of Mitt Romney.

Dear Bill,

Have you noticed the way the steady stream of negative publicity about you has suddenly started to intensify?

Brace yourself, I think you are in for a lot more of it.

Do you remember Mitt Romney?

He
was the nice-enough guy who was convinced that he was going to consign
Obama to the dust-bin of history. He was so confident, he didn't even
bother to prepare a concession speech.

Do
you remember one of the main election strategies Mr Nice Guy Obama used
to defeat Romney? Obama went in hard and went in early with a costly,
dirty campaign to paint Romney as an elitist, out of touch, plutocrat.

Obama's successful strategy was to paint a picture in the electorate's mind of and about Romney before
Romney himself had a chance to portray himself. Once the paint on that
picture had dried, Romney could do very little to change it.

This
is the bad news for you, Bill. For whatever reasons, you have spent
nearly eight months on the sidelines of public consciousness. You have
not been able to spend this time building a strong personal identity in
words or actions. Perhaps your tactic has been to give Abbott enough
rope and expect that the dangerous weirdo will hang himself, and put us
all out of our misery.

The tactic has half worked.

Abbott has enough rope to hang himself and everyone else in his party room, but I don't see him swinging from any tree just yet.

That is why you are now going to get the Romney treatment. We are going to hear endless negative stories about you.

The current Union Royal Commission is just the start.

We
know that Abbott and his claque are world leaders in the art of
negative and unfair political character assassination. Why is it
possible that some of this mud will stick and you will not be able to
present a credible alternative to the Libs?

First,
because they will use the tiniest shreds of stuff about you (union
history and links, for example) to damn you. And, secondly, there was a
vacuum there which they will fill with their own bile.

Sadly,
you have not done enough in the time you have been leader to make a
strong, multifaceted, positive impression on swinging voters who care
very little about politics, or enough of the Labor base who do take an
interest and hate what they see about Abbott's Government.

Bill, in short, you are being Romneyed.

Hilarious Mitt Romney Gaffe Compilation

And it is partly, if not largely, your own doing — as it was Romney's.

But all is not lost.

You
are about to have your make-or-break moment. The new teams in the
ballgame are about to start playing. Actions will now speak louder than
words. Abbott's dreadful Budget measures will be either defeated or
passed in the Senate.

Two things have to happen for you to avoid Romney's fate.

One, all of the Budget measures that are unfair to ordinary voters must be defeated in the Senate. This is a sine qua non for you. You cannot fail to deliver on this.

And
two, you will have to show that you are the deft and strategic leader
who can work with the Greens, the Palmer mob and sundry others to
achieve this outcome.

It
won't be enough to defeat these measures if the Greens and/or Clive
Palmer end up all over our TV screens talking about how they have
defeated Abbott and saved the Australian people from disaster.

It
is a bad outcome for you and Labor if it appears that you are being
dragged or led by – rather than leading – the minor parties in the
gunfights that we are about to see in the Senate.

Whether
you like it or not, you are going to have to get your hands dirty. (All
of those players will want something in exchange for their vote; why
else would they bother turning up?)

If
you can pull this off, if the public believe in six months' time that
it is Labor – led by you – that was in control of the situation in the
Senate, who did the dirty stuff and wheeling and dealing in the
backrooms to get the required votes, then there is every chance that you
might avoid Romney's fate.

The battle is imminent. The issues are clear.

This is penalty shootout time.

Victory or defeat, your moment has come, whether you are ready or not.

Good luck!

In Full: Bill Shorten's budget reply speech

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia License

Under the shade of a Barcaldine gum tree - - The Australian Independent Media Network

Under the shade of a Barcaldine gum tree - - The Australian Independent Media Network

Under the shade of a Barcaldine gum tree

• 
  
  June 23, 2014
  
• 
  Written by:
  The AIM Network
  
• 
  30 Replies

Image by smh.com.au

• 
  Category: Politics
• 
  permalink
  
  
  
• 
  Tagged under:
  
  
  Australian Labor Party, Bill Shorten
• 
  
  
  The AIM Network
  
  
  
  

The response to Kay Rollison’s An Open Letter to Bill Shorten was
overwhelming, suggesting that many Labor voters are dissatisfied with
Mr Shorten’s performance as Leader of the Opposition. This, of course,
remains open for debate. We follow this up with another letter to Mr
Shorten, from Damian Smith, who is not so much dissatisfied with Mr Shorten himself, but the party he leads.


To The Hon. Bill Shorten,


Mr Shorten, I’m concerned.


My concerns regard yourself and the party that you lead and
represent. Recent reports speculate that you are considering not
blocking supply to this farcical attempt at fascism masquerading as a
budget, that you would consider doing so “undemocratic”.


Mr Shorten, this budget is undemocratic. It is a stretch to even call
it a budget. It would be more accurate to call it a summation of all of
the broken promises of this government, all the brazen lies these
cretins slathered on the Australian electorate in a craven grab for
power. All of what was promised in the election has been retracted. The
opposite has been put into effect. That is not, to my way of
thinking, conducive with democracy.


This is the time when the Labor Party should be at its most vehement,
jaws locked firmly on the exposed jugular of an overconfident foe. Yet
you look set to let this injustice slide, to once again do what the
Labor Party has become so good at in the last decade – capitulate.


Mr Shorten do you even remember the light on the hill?


I do, though every day it becomes even more dim and distant, as those
of us who still strive for it are waylaid by the tyrannies of evil men
and the sheer implacability of those that would set their will against
us.


I used to be a member of the Labor Party. I believe in the values
that the party was built on – equality, egalitarianism, “a fair go”. I
believe that the measure of a man is in the quality of his work and the
strength of his accomplishment, not the money in his bank or the name on
his birth certificate. Ben Chifley’s Light On The Hill.


In those values I still believe, though I fear the Labor Party does not.


I had to leave. I left as I watched the political landscape change and not for the better.


I watched as the right-wing of Australia migrated from “right-wing”
to “crazy, backwards, religiously extreme, flat-earth, young-earth,
creationist, f**ked-up right wing” and I watched as the Labor Party,
traditionally the “left”, in an attempt to claw back any and every vote
that it could, went from being left wing to being “just slightly left of
the Tea Party nutters”.


In the most Faustian of moves you sold your soul. You sold out the
people who truly believed in the cause to try to woo those whose vote
you would never have.


You neither had your cake nor the satisfaction of eating it.


That I could not countenance. So I left.


The right controls the media and so too do they control the paradigm.
They control the lexicon and by association the minds of those swayed
by such things. Climate change “debate”. Carbon “tax”. Budget
“emergency”. It doesn’t matter that these things are not true, the lies
will be printed anyway.


You can’t compete on this battleground, you don’t have the resources
and, I would hope, lack the inclination. You can’t fight on their terms.


They’re so powerful that they have convinced a disturbing number of
Australians that our greatest prime minister was actually our worst and
that the world’s best treasurer of recent times was an incompetent
buffoon who doomed our nation. You can’t win.


No amount of bipartisanship or flexibility is going to sway those who
are not already for the cause. No amount of compromise is going to
swing the vote of someone who has been convinced by a decade of Today
Tonight that you are responsible for a fiscal crisis that never existed.


The only way for you to win is to provide a clear alternative. A
better option. To offer people a glimpse of the light on the hill.


The answer is not to kowtow to the right but to provide a staunch and
uncompromising banner on the left, one that shines high and proud for
us to rally behind.


The right has convinced the people that socialism is a dirty word and
that unions are tantamount to gangsters. The solution is not to abandon
these principles, which are the core and the soul of the Labor Party,
in an attempt to shed the stigma which has been so unfairly attached by a
corporate agenda.


The answer is to embrace them, to wear them with pride and with
dignity and to say that we are by the people, for the people, now and
forever and that we will stand firm and implacable in the ebbs and flows
of the capricious public.


That is the Labor Party I want to be a part of.


I should be your man Mr Shorten. I’m a Mascot boy, Kingsford-Smith – born under Bowen and raised under Brereton.


I’m a member of a trade union and a proud socialist. I’m at once both
an artist and a blue collar worker – a comedian and an airport baggage
handler. I AM the Labor Party.Yet I’m not a member. That concerns me and
it should concern you.


Win me back Mr Shorten. Prove to me that this great party – Chifley’s
party, Hawke’s party, the god-king-made-flesh Keating’s party, is still
my party too. Lead by example. Lead by dissent, as our forefathers did.


Lead us to the light on the hill.


And you can start by blocking this blight of a budget.


Yours?


Damian Smith


This article was first published as An Open Letter to Bill Shorten on thedamiansmith.tumblr.com and has been reproduced with permission.


Follow Damian on Facebook, Twitter, or visit his web page damiansmith.com.au.

Cede power, Anthony Albanese tells factions | The Australian

Cede power, Anthony Albanese tells factions |
The Australian

Cede power, Anthony Albanese tells factions

• 
  May 02, 2014
  12:00AM
  

tefanie Balogh

Senior Writer

Canberra

Anthony Albanese in parliament. Picture: Gary Ramage

LABOR Left leader Anthony ­Albanese last night called on union
chiefs and power­brokers — including himself — to relinquish power and
influence to members because they have a “collective responsibility’’ to
reform the party.

And he hit out at some March for March protesters who overstepped
the mark, cautioning that those on the progressive side of politics
“should leave the abusive slogans and offensive posters to the fringe’’.

Mr
Albanese, who won the popular vote in last year’s leadership ballot,
backed calls for the party to be overhauled, saying critics who argued
internal debate was a distraction were missing the point.

“If we
can craft progressive policies and endorse candidates drawn from across
the community — not just from our existing circle of insiders — we can
make Mr Abbott a one-term prime minister,’’ he told Young Labor
supporters in Cairns.





His intervention in Labor’s reform debate is significant because the
former minister is widely respected, popular with members and heads the
Left faction.

“The bottom line for Labor Party reform is that
unless some people who hold power now are prepared to share it with
others, it will fail,’’ he said.

“You can’t give more power to the membership without taking it from the powerbrokers.’’

They
had a collective responsibility to act, even if that meant some lost
power. “I include myself in that,’’ he said. “This will mean uncertain
outcomes. But that’s the point.’’

He also called for civility in
politics. “Labor’s starting point on the road to political recovery must
be acceptance that negativity and name calling won’t ­advance our
political cause.’’

It was a shame, Mr Albanese said, that when
Australians joined the March in March protests, the “message was
undermined by some of the banners’’.

He said he saw one that “actually condemned democracy’’. “That’s not progressive. That’s unacceptable. Full stop’’.

Some protesters
also wore ­“F..k Tony Abbott’’ T-shirts.

“We should leave the
abusive slogans and offensive posters to the fringe,’’ Mr Albanese said.
“Labor seeks to govern with ­majority support of the nation, not to be
just a party of protest.

“We must change the culture of party
processes to harness the broader participation that will broaden our
access to new ideas and potential candidates. Ideas must come from the
parliamentary wing and workplaces, but also from business people, mums
and dads in the suburbs, young people, professional people, churches,
and ethnic communities, even the local footy club.’’

He also
backed the push by ALP national president Jenny McAllister and retiring
veteran senator John Faulkner for union chiefs and factional
powerbrokers to cede power.

“I support the rank-and-file
membership having a direct say in electing delegates to state and
national ALP conferences,’’ he said.

“The same goes for the selection of Senate and upper house candidates.’’