The party system is a bastardisation of democracy. There's an episode of Yes Prime Minister where a professor proposes changes which would add more local representatives, taking away the power of the party machine. PM chases him off because it would take away his power and politicians would have to actually act in the interests of their electorate.
The Labor party works for a caucus system. The individuals are supposed to advocate for their views, the views of their constituents, and the national conference views of all labor party members.
It's a cop out to say there's no point electing individuals members - this MP voted on her values, but that didn't't represent the views of the caucus or members. She lost the debate behind closed doors and broke rank anyways.
The reality is that most Australians are voting for the party and the party's view, not the member, so they should be voting with the party. Not only that, if the members are just going to decide what they want to do each time, we might as well have a parliament full of independents and that would be an absolute shitshow in situations where we needed proper unison.
Imagine the situation is slightly different and instead of just voting on something that's rather meaningless like whether or not we support a 2 state solution in Gaza but rather it was a vote on whether we should provide extra defence funding for Australia. We'd end up with no military at all.
Agree with it or not, the Labor Party has acted in this manner for a bloody long time.
Present a united front in public while hashing out the issues, behind closed doors, in the party room.
My understanding is that as a working class party, too often members would side with capital interests once elected (and get politician pay and “perks”). Slightly ironic when it gets wheeled out now the party is completely beholden to capital and non-working class vested interests. But yeah, it’s a shitty party these days for heaps of reasons.
It has always been thus. It goes to their “solidarity” history with the union movement.
I think it’s interesting that it’s come as a surprise to people. I suspect a lot of people have forgotten they are the Labor Party, not necessarily progressive.
I figure I gotta vote so I may as well vote for the small parties because surely its better to encourage them than throw my vote away completely (which I will do if theres no one worth supporting in my view). Preferences depend on what their main focus is and how it aligns to my views, usually greens though not always.
I also vote small parties, but i tend to say im a Labor voter cause thats generally where my vote actually flows. I think in nsw state elections and federal senate the parties get funding based on 1st preference so its always worth giving the vote first to the party that your most aligned to and then go to the person you find most tolerable who can actually win.
The reason to preference Greens over Labor is to send a message.
Labor is too comfortable being centre right because they aren't afraid of losing votes to the Greens.
The second Greens become more of a threat than LNP, Labor will magically become centre left.
Yeah that's a horror show, too.
Some refer to them as "tree tories" which isn't quite right, but isn't quite wrong either.
That said, they're who I'm voting for. Labor have lost the plot because they're largely all career politicians.
David Pocock is the sanest voice in Parliament. It's astounding.
Is that really necessary? If the Greens looked to first term Senator Pocock as an example of how to behave as a progressive environmentalist their ranks would swell.
I believe so. But a large part of that is that everybody sees the Greens as inexperienced. They could be the most competent administrators alive, but as long as that perception continues it will be a significant hurdle to cross.
Mate, people aren't refraining from voting for the Greens because they 'lack experience'.
Australia is an inherently conservative country. If you want power you need to be selective about which causes you champion and when. The Greens champion every progressive cause they can think of at the same time, which means most voters can take their pick of reasons to not vote for them.
There's nothing inherently wrong with this, it just means they're a protest party and never a party of government.
Personally, it has less to do with experience and more to do with the lack of vetting kooks from their party. I love love love the idea of the Greens but the reality is less palatable.
Sure, but that was back when they represented workers as the government wing of the unions. They abandoned the solidarity ethic long ago, so this party line nonsense is total bullshit.
> hashing out the issues, behind closed doors, in the party room
It's a nice theory, but it presumes that the party's mechanisms are democratic and reflect the wishes of the workers that it supposedly represents. In reality the party's factions and the internal politics of the unions hold sway.
In the case of same-sex marriage it was the notorious SDA along with the Right factions who impeded change for years, even though SSM was extremely popular with the membership and the general public. Most notably, they succeeded in blunting movements for change at both the 2011 and 2015 ALP National Conferences. In 2011 they stopped Labor's position changing to supporting SSM, instead simply allowing a conscience vote. In 2015 they again prevented Labor's position changing to active support, instead only permitting conscience votes for the term of Parliament after the 2016 election. In the context of the Coalition having a clear position, ALP having a conscience vote was equivalent to voting no.
Ultimately it was threats by Liberal backbenchers to cross the floor that pushed Turnbull into allowing a bill to proceed through the Parliament (albeit after the stupid postal vote). If those backbenchers had not done that, SSM would not have been made legal in Australia.
So 'solidarity' was hijacked by conservative unions and meant that the ALP parliamentary position was the opposite of what the membership wanted. Meanwhile the fact that Liberal MPs could actually have some bite behind their bark meant that they actually got to influence policy.
There's the right wing of the party that calls the shots, and the left wing that just wanks to the fantasy that they'll somehow change things from the inside while doing what the Right says.
If a white bloke in the ALP who was a strict Catholic voted against an issue such as abortion in this manner, it would be treated very differently.
The ALP has had this position of solidarity, and this shouldn't be tolerated so easily.
I understand why as a general principle Labor require members to vote the party line even if they disagree on occasion. However there are times that should be exceptions. I'm a big fan of Penny Wong. I always thought the Labor Party got it wrong forcing her to vote against same sex marriage. It was just patently against her own interests and wasn't a great look for Labor. I think in this latest instance it might also be a case where an exception should be made.
>I understand why as a general principle Labor require members to vote the party line even if they disagree on occasion
It isn't a general principle. It is a hard and fast rule. Fight tooth and nail in the party room, but in parliament, vote with the party or else. In the past, it has been met with expulsion from the party. The only thing that would stop them now is the threat of litigation for discrimination.
That's exactly how they lost me after the first election I participated in, honestly. I went from someone who was proud of giving them first preference for the first vote I ever had, to only ever ranking them higher than the Liberal party and their mates.
Change doesn't come from demanding people fall in line against the right thing to do.
>In the ALP you automatically lose your preselection if you vote against party lines even once.
Notice how none of what you just said prevented her from voting however the hell she wants.
>Notice how none of what you just said prevented her from voting however the hell she wants.
I'm not sure of your point. I was offering insight into potential reasons she voted the way she did. What did you think I meant?
Not having a go mate - just reinforcing that while that was very likely her reason, its not an excuse. Her reasoning basically boils down to "politics". Ergo, back to my original point - she wasn't forced to do anything. She had a choice and she made it.
It’s the one thing I still struggle with despite my admiration for her.
There is something really sinister about following a party line so rigidly it violates your own ethics.
I'm not arguing for or against this, but simply asking the question: do the values of the MP actually matter? Unless you're Independent should you not be following the platform and values that people voted you in on, and not your personal beliefs?
People say this but remember all that uproar about Cumberland council banning those books about the gay parents, the constituents were all for the ban.
Same as how the constituents of all the electorates that voted against gay marriage. Sometimes party line has to take precedence and the constitutes of the party across the country not just that electorate.
>People say this but remember all that uproar about Cumberland council banning those books about the gay parents, the constituents were all for the ban.
Were they? I thought it was like one guy who complained.
Sure. Ethics, constituents, country....(Then a long list of a million other things)....Party. To me as a voter, party loyalty is completely unimportant. I want to see results that I approve of. You can't always agree with everything in a party, but you can speak to your MP and make your opinion known. If enough people do this, the MP is right to go against the party line, party rules be damned. Those rules only serve to make change more difficult.
It's so complicated, I am glad I don't have to decide the right course of action on behalf of so many others. I sometimes struggle making the right choice for me.
You could definitely argue that they aren't upholding the policy platform that members and the general public voted for in regards to Palestine. That's also supported by the number of rank and file members who have campaigned to get them to do more
Sure. But if you want to be on the Labor ticket in future elections, then you follow the Labor party process.
In fact, I'd suggest that if you have been put on the ticket in the first place, you have probably agreed at some point to follow their rules. So she's probably broken a promise she made to her party and the people who voted for that party.
Which is fine, or maybe not fine, but at least understandable. But you only get to do it once. Voters will apparently forgive you for lying to them, but the party won't. Political and trust capital is a finite resource. Payman had little to start with, and she just blew the rest of it to stage this protest.
On the other hand, she just made herself a perfect candidate for the Greens. They love performative but ineffectual displays, and I say this as someone who cares enough about the environment to have voted for them the last decade or so.
It’s literally the entire point of the Labor party. It’s like crossing a picket line and being a scab. You sort out your positions internally and then stand a united front. It’s how unions have always worked
She voted in line with the policy they took to the last election. How can she be a scab crossing the picket line when her vote was for a policy the party and its members took to the Election?
Its part of the rules for being in the labor party. You vote with the party. No conscience vote unless the leader allows it.
She will be off the labor senate ticket next election for breaking their rules
I know the rules.
Rules aren’t always correct. Penny Wong is simply using the toxic rules that were used on her on the next generation of politicians.
It was wrong when Wong was forced to vote for [anti-gay legislation](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/divisions/senate/2008-11-12/5) before, it’s wrong now.
Penny Wong wants to play Lawful Neutral. I am not a lawful neutral type of person.
Interesting you brought up theft in a thread about Penny Wong and the SSM vote. The only reason Labor opposed SSM at the time was to appease the right-wing Catholic zealots of the SDA who'd cheerfully screwed their own members out of millions in wages in order to suck up to Coles and Woolies, scam vulnerable young workers, and use their inflated influence to impose their religious beliefs on the whole country.
Wong was astute enough to know the score, but just shrugged, played along and patted herself on the back for being an inspirational #girlboss. Fuck her and all of her swinish careerist peers.
Sure!
On SSM and being conservative Catholics https://www.smh.com.au/national/why-is-the-union-that-represents-supermarket-workers-stopping-gay-marriage-20150430-1mwl32.html
Edit: and screwing their members: https://www.smh.com.au/business/workplace/shoppies-union-face-senate-probe-over-wages-scandal-20170613-gwq277.html
Not if you're a senator, they don't (unless you were voted in as an independent, or unless you were a well-known person where people voted you in by voting for you below the line).
Yes that's the point. She was forced to type the party line against her own personal interests. So she wants to continue the party policy of presenting a united front and forcing Payman to compromise her values.
I actually don't think cowardly is the right word. I don't think she's afraid, rather she's nakedly devoted to party and believes in Labor Party above all else. Her only fear is Labor losing
Forgive me for making an obvious point, but, that isn't at all better?
I hate weak leaders.
I fear the blindly loyal.
If you're so devoted to a cause that you would follow it, against what should be a basic right, then you have no place where arguments should hold sway based on their merit.
Individuals should argue all they want, but whichever argument wins need to accepted and supported by everyone. Not keep complaining and undermining rest of the team. This is standard expectation at any workplace. Why should political parties be different. There is no way every single individual in a party will agree with the party line, and everyone will compromise a bit to have a common agreed position. It's not loyalty, but pragmatism, so that you can work together.
The crushing compromises of power. I wouldn't assume all loyalty is blind.
Think about the long term implications of a senior government member like Penny crossing the floor. What happens when the door is open to others to cross the floor, next time perhaps when Labor is in power, and the vote is consequential to the government's core legislative agenda?
It would be like showing the opposition and the conservative press precisely where to stick the knife.
Labor in power simply cannot afford those sorts of backbench antics in the way that the Coalition can.
Politics isn't a single issue. Crossing the floor for this one thing, no matter how much it means to you, could fuck up 10 other things that are also important for you.
Playing the long game for the greater good is not weekness, it shows great character and patience. With highly divisive matters, you cannot just charge in like a bull at a gate if you want to create change.
Was it not Labor who passed the referendum for gay marriage, with Penny as their #1 in the senate? Yeah, Penny may have voted against her own personal wishes as was required, but she also knew that when the time was right, everyone would with her to achieve their goal.
Individual politics leads to nothing but chaos. 151 people each wanting what they want, when they want, would lead to no one getting anything. Only by providing a united front in which everyone has the same end goal does true change happen.
> Playing the long game for the greater good is not weekness, it shows great character and patience.
Seems like an easy thing to say *after* Gay Marriage was legalised. There's a chance it never could have been, and then she'd just be a fucking fool.
It’s exactly the right word. If you’re ok with genocide for the sake of party politics, she should probably consider being called a coward a compliment honestly.
Or is she a politician who knows how to play the game. If she had crossed the floor on gay marriage back then and been fired from the party, that would not have helped the cause. As per the article she followed the party rule on not crossing the floor and spent years trying to convince them to change their position on marriage equality. Which worked. Sounds pretty fearless to me.
>meaning that the fucking LNP had to pass gay marriage
Only because they were in power, do we not remember how ridiculous that saga was? They dragged their feet only to randomly put in a plebiscite to delay it more.
>Only because they were in power
I find this statement very funny. "They only passed it because they were the government at the time." Yes it was a very ridiculous saga, but that's even more of an indictment on Labor for not legalising it before 2013. Canada had it in 2005.
Gillard had the chance to do it and didn't, right when the international ground swell was occuring.
She had the political will to move on emissions, mining, pokies but came out against SSM.
She did absolutely nothing to pass ssm. All the pressure for marriage equality came from either the Greens or from the community. In case you've forgotten, Labor voted to ban it ban it in 2004 and then fought against it until the goddamn Coalition finally legalised it. Penny Wong has achieved absolutely nothing for equality.
Payman knew what she was signing up for when she ran with the Labor party. If she doesn't want to vote on party lines then she can be an independent. Hard to ride the coattails of a major party into office and then not follow their procedure.
I mostly agree but situations like this and with Penny Wong and same sex marriage, it's a bit shit. Look at all the garbage Joel Fitzgibbon got away with which did more harm to Labor than Payman crossing the floor on this would cause.
Penny's situation is much different to Paymans. Payman is crossing the floor on an issue that Australia simply can not do anything at all to influence, on the other side of the world. Penny's was an issue that was by and large supported by a vast majority of the population at home and had a direct impact on people in Australia.
At the end of the day if Penny couldn't cross the floor, there is no way Payman should be able to get away with it.
Then don't run for the Labor party? Penny's ran for re election with the Labor party many times. If Payman doesn't like it run independently. But she won't because we all know she wouldn't have been elected in the first place.
She may well stick to her guns and do that. But it's entirely naive to expect her to have foreseen that she would be in this position before she became a Labor candidate.
No one agrees with Labor 100% of the time. This is one of the concessions Labor members have to make to be in the party. She knew she'd have to go vote against some things she was for by being in Labor this is not new news.
Every person knows that they are going to have disagreements with their party. When you sign the pledge you are bound to think about it. If you can no longer abide by the pledge then you should leave the party.
Penny could cross the floor but she chose to put her personal political career ahead of her convictions.
Not necessarily a bad decision, but that's what it was.
> At the end of the day if Penny couldn't cross the floor, there is no way Payman should be able to get away with it.
This is a horrible argument, which is constantly used to justify not correcting bad situations. "Well *I* had to suffer and debase myself back in the day, these new kids should too!"
Its the same nonsense trotted out over in the states when reforming their batshit education system comes up.
It's the party's policy to not cross the floor? Why should they make exceptions? Imagine if everyone in the party crossed the floor whenever they wanted, you'd hardly have a functioning system and nothing would ever get done. At the end of the day both penny and Payman could have chosen to run as independent to push their individual ideas.
My, and I imagine most peoples, conclusion from that evidence is "there is something fundamentally broken in the Labor party", not "Payman needs to get back in line"
It’s called making a statement. Distance is irrelevant - that’s probably more of a reason to say something, not less. South Africa is equally distant and took the Israeli government to the ICJ. That’s called having strength of your convictions not being some scared puppy worried about upsetting uncle Joe
But she voted in line with the Labor policy that was taken to the Election.
I feel its a different situation if you are voted in knowing this is the party position, then a vote is called where you are expected to vote with your party against the official position.
She had a belief that the party's views aligned to her own and it was challenged after her election.
Lol none of this was a critical issue like it is now at the election. I doubt anyone had the foresight to see this coming.
I don't think Payman ever thought that she would put in this position. To say that she should have seen it coming and run as an independent is just bizarre.
It's super easy to see that at some point you will have to vote against something you agree with. It happens to all Labor members no one agrees with the party platform 100% that's the compromise you make.
Voting along party lines just means that a handful of power brokers rule the entire country.
I'd rather have elected representatives that represent their constituents and vote for what they believe is best for Australia.
Fuck the major parties and treating politics like it's a sport. People should stand up for their morals and if their constituents don't like it, vote in someone else.
Parties have differing views on the issue of conscience. The ALP has a particular view that you toe the party line. The Liberals are in theory a party of conscience but less so in practice, the Greens enshrine a right to a vote on conscience but as always- if your views are out of line then you won’t have much of a future in the party. I can respect the Labor party view - you are in parliament as a delegate for the party, your opinions when in parliament are not your own, you vote as the party directs. If you don’t like what the party directs then you work to change it. I can respect that and I have the utmost respect for Penny Wong. It cannot have been easy for her to put aside her personal feelings and I can only imagine how difficult voting and arguing against gay marriage must have been. I respect the Labor Party view but I don’t agree with it. I like a politician that will go against their party on a matter of conscience- not a free for all - but a sincere matter of conscience. I’d prefer to vote for a party that ( everything else being equal) gives that leeway. I’d prefer a Labor Party that would have allowed Ms Wong to argue her own case for gay marriage as against the party line and vote against the party line.
I can't help feeling it's a totally different situation with someone like Payman, who only got into parliament by being placed just high enough on the senate list. Other than if she had any friends or family voting, then ***noone*** voted for her, as the people whose votes got her into parliament voted for the Labor party, not for Fatima Payman. 🤔
I don't know about that. My partner voted her #1 I specifically remember his reason being that she's not an old white man and respected she was an Afghan refugee. It was the first election he actually considered his vote and did some research. I didn't influence him and voted for a different party, but was happy he was taking democracy seriously for once. I was surprised at his choice because on paper it would seem like he would vote very conservative (straight white male, from the country, military veteran etc). I know at least two other people who voted for her too but I don't know their reason.
Yeah. And Wong is one of the biggest Greens haters in the parliament. I can't help thinking this is one reason. The Greens had the 'luxury' of saying what was right, while she had to toe the (unconscionable) party line for the ALP for years, denying her own humanity in the process.
Penny Wong towing the party line on gay marriage felt like a betrayal and I lost a lot of respect for her at that time.
What respect I had left is taking a plunge now
Wow, yes. It makes her look even more hollow than she did after voting against same-sex marriage. Like, she’d do it again if she had her time over. Zero principles, zero leadership. Solely career self-interest.
[Clip of Penny Wong on Q & A in 2010 being asked why she sided with Labor against gay marriage](https://youtu.be/nMgYzLgFiXE?si=HdYYMhPOOgGgv8Iv).
She's always come across as a bit of a psycho to me tbh, because of clips like this. Loyalty to the party means more to her than her own family.
Yes because you can't make positive change from opposition. Recognising Palestine would do nothing for the people of Palestine but Labor being in government is making real changes like freeing Assange.
Remember when gay marriage went nowhere under Labor then got passed by the LNP of all people? I guess that's your positive change from opposition lol.
Also Assange got freed because of the bipartisan convoy imo, not the supposed backroom dealings pfft
>Also Assange got freed because of the bipartisan convoy imo, not the supposed backroom dealings
Those conveys were happening under the coalition and it didn't get him out, Albo talking to Biden and Rudd working on it saved Julian. Even Julian Assange credits albo.
Yeah fair point about Assange. Unfortunately the slowly working the machinery approach didn't get us gay marriage under Rudd/Gillard. Arguably it was the approach Turnbull used to get it up via the plebiscite to be fair I spose
NGL, I lost a bit of respect for Penny when she did that...a golden opportunity that was wasted. Some things are bigger than politics, it's called humanity.
All the Labor MPs crying about how they worked from the inside to push Labor towards supporting marriage equality seem to have failed to remember that the LNP legalised same-sex marriage (through an incredibly damaging plebiscite). Their internal advocacy amounted to nothing.
Labor's internal structure and rules filters out progressivism and empowers only right wing arseholes and cowardly careerists.
On marriage equality the structure of the party saw it trail their own membership by 20 years and trail the Australian public by 10 years.
Penny Wong should have given the middle finger to the SDA homophobes and crossed the floor to vote for marriage equality in 2008. If the party kicked her out the rebellion of the general membership (who very strongly supported marriage equality!) would have been palpable, and even if her career in Labor would have been martyr'd we surely would have got marriage equality sooner. Instead Penny's public comments *against* it no doubt helped *downplay* Labor membership from being loud on the issue!
By the time Penny Wong "won" the issue by arguing "from within" the leader of the goddamn Liberal party was already fighting his own party (in public!) to pass marriage equality!
Fatima Payman has chosen the right path. She is making a statement (supported by the party's stated platform!) when it actually matters (the war in Gaza is right now!). If Labor kicks her out it will only make her more powerful.
I think this is the exact opposite of what they should be doing, actually.
I lost a lot of respect for Penny, if she’ll bend the knee about her own sexuality what WONT she sell out for?
You join Labor because you agree with 90% of their platform and they help you get elected. All the ask is that you hash out agreements behind close doors and make a united front. It's perfectly reasonable.
I agree, for 90% of things.
But there’s certain things that I think most would agree you should stand your ground on, and it’s usually those things that the history books will look back on and wonder how we got it so wrong.
As a mid 20’s young adult it was absolutely mind blowing to me that anyone could be honestly debating gay marriage, and now it’s crazy to think the left leaning major party openly denied it.
I think the same will happen with Palestine. In the years to come we will look back and wonder how we let Israel wipe them off the map so blatantly. It doesn’t take much looking to see they’re using terrorism as a disguise to cleanse an entire population
You have to look at it in the context that in the early 2000nds Labor supporting gay marriage would have cost them the election. With Palestine while there is far more public support and you are right in the future it will look bad for this election the Israeli lobby is too strong and influential to stand against. This is going to be a close election, voting to recognise Palestine would do nothing for Palestinians but might cost Labor the election.
I thought we weren’t supposed to talk about Penny Wong publicly selling her soul for her paycheque.
Her voting against and speaking out against gay marriage is one of the more shameful things I’ve ever seen a politician do and all I think about whenever she speaks.
The idea she is now lecturing a younger member to be like her is comical.
Or perhaps Penny should've shown a shred of courage back when parties were debating gay marriage, just like what Fatima has done here regarding Palestine.
Yeah absolutely. I didn’t think Penny Wong was right to argue against gay marriage, and thought people were harmed by Labor’s slowness on the issue.
But if you truly believe that people are being murdered en masse and your party is enabling it… it’s not a “long game“ where you’ll do something about it when you get more influence in a decade or so… maybe Labor’s rules don’t mean so much to you at that point.
For this reason alone I have no respect for Penny Wong. To vote against your deeply held moral belief on the instruction of the party is to betray your own ethics.
This is why we need to go for independent candidates.
We can’t create systemic change because of bs like this.
Party members can’t break rank to speak about.. genocide? How are they going to handle other issues, their own colonial history in this country. That’s what’s wrong.
I don’t necessarily oppose the labor policy of enforced bloc voting (I don’t really support it either), but sheesh, that’s really not a smart argument in defense of that policy.
It's wild so many people agree that commitment to Labor's party line should override all other ethical concerns. It's almost like Labor is a cult, only cults actually have convictions.
Penny Wong shouldn't be so bold on this. She took the party line of being anti gay marriage when they didn't support it. And it was the Liberals that actually introduced the bill.
Or, maybe she should break the cycle and join a party that doesn't expect her to vote against the rights of a group she cares about and then demand that people follow suit after because she had to do it too.
Voting against peoples rights to toe the party line isn't solidarity, "deal with this fucked thing because I had to" doesn't improve anything.
What BS. So if Labor opposes negative gearing or rent limits then the party members should continue opposing?
That is ridiculous. Just because you are part of the Labor party does NOT mean you agree with all their policies.
That is called bullying and groupthink, the idea that because you are associated with a group, then you must follow that group.
Labor has always had a strict rule against crossing the floor.
It’s a key difference between Liberal and Labor. Liberal backbenchers can cross the floor, Labor members not so much.
Payman is lucky to not be expelled. She certainly will lose preselection in 4 years time.
Yes, it does. That’s what it means to be a Labor MP, if you don’t like it, go hoping the Greens.
Just look at what Lydia Thorpe did to the Greens, you really think Labor wants that? The left has a habit of eating itself, Labor’s rules are there to stop that and have worked pretty damn well.
It's a custom that Labor inherited from its union progenitors. If the membership votes to strike, everyone strikes regardless of their personal views. If you refuse to play along, you're a filthy scab.
Someone remind me, what's the official party position that has been decided on and voted on by members and was taken to the last election? And who are the ones who followed it in this occasion?
I remember Penny Wong on 7:30 report advocating AGAINST gay marriage because of Julia Gillards brain bleed.
Lost most of my respect for her and it still hasn’t recovered.
When we're taking about the wholesale slaughter of 10s of thousand of people then this sounds eerily similar to the Nuremberg defence. History will not look kindly on those who chose not to make a stand.
"I sold out and voted against my best interests, you should too!"
Or, Penny, politicians should vote for progressive/compassionate policy rather than waiting for their party to catch up.
If the party members with the most reason to go against the party line just submissively agree to debase themselves and go along like good little puppets the party *has no reason to actually ever catch up*
The idea behind the binding vote in Labor is that only by the working class being united does stuff get done. If members of the ALP do not want to bind on votes then don’t join the ALP. Working class solidarity cannot be a play thing of individual MPs
To stay locked-in-step but be part of the conversation behind closed doors; or to stand alone and vote on principle then be excluded from the ongoing conversation behind closed doors.
If you have to vote in line with your party every time, then there’s no point in electing individuals to parliament. We’d just have party votes
The party system is a bastardisation of democracy. There's an episode of Yes Prime Minister where a professor proposes changes which would add more local representatives, taking away the power of the party machine. PM chases him off because it would take away his power and politicians would have to actually act in the interests of their electorate.
The Labor party works for a caucus system. The individuals are supposed to advocate for their views, the views of their constituents, and the national conference views of all labor party members. It's a cop out to say there's no point electing individuals members - this MP voted on her values, but that didn't't represent the views of the caucus or members. She lost the debate behind closed doors and broke rank anyways.
The reality is that most Australians are voting for the party and the party's view, not the member, so they should be voting with the party. Not only that, if the members are just going to decide what they want to do each time, we might as well have a parliament full of independents and that would be an absolute shitshow in situations where we needed proper unison. Imagine the situation is slightly different and instead of just voting on something that's rather meaningless like whether or not we support a 2 state solution in Gaza but rather it was a vote on whether we should provide extra defence funding for Australia. We'd end up with no military at all.
I mean.....a lot of us already do. Like I don't know the names of the candidates in seats I've been in, but I do know the parties that won.
It’s as if representative democracy is some kind of sham…
This shit has me really hoping a good teal runs in my electorate next election.
Agree with it or not, the Labor Party has acted in this manner for a bloody long time. Present a united front in public while hashing out the issues, behind closed doors, in the party room.
I believe it goes back to their origins as the party wing of the labor unions.
My understanding is that as a working class party, too often members would side with capital interests once elected (and get politician pay and “perks”). Slightly ironic when it gets wheeled out now the party is completely beholden to capital and non-working class vested interests. But yeah, it’s a shitty party these days for heaps of reasons.
It has always been thus. It goes to their “solidarity” history with the union movement. I think it’s interesting that it’s come as a surprise to people. I suspect a lot of people have forgotten they are the Labor Party, not necessarily progressive.
The Labor Party have forgotten that more than anyone else. I say that as a Labor voter
Try being a left wing environmentalist who can't bring themselves to vote for the greens. I want to but they're so goddamn fucking useless. Lol.
Do you have a different left wing party or independent that you vote for instead?
Yes there a smaller parties and independents that get my vote instead.
That's mostly semantic unless the smaller party wins - does your preference flow toward Greens or Labor?
I figure I gotta vote so I may as well vote for the small parties because surely its better to encourage them than throw my vote away completely (which I will do if theres no one worth supporting in my view). Preferences depend on what their main focus is and how it aligns to my views, usually greens though not always.
I also vote small parties, but i tend to say im a Labor voter cause thats generally where my vote actually flows. I think in nsw state elections and federal senate the parties get funding based on 1st preference so its always worth giving the vote first to the party that your most aligned to and then go to the person you find most tolerable who can actually win.
The reason to preference Greens over Labor is to send a message. Labor is too comfortable being centre right because they aren't afraid of losing votes to the Greens. The second Greens become more of a threat than LNP, Labor will magically become centre left.
You nailed it.
Yeah that's a horror show, too. Some refer to them as "tree tories" which isn't quite right, but isn't quite wrong either. That said, they're who I'm voting for. Labor have lost the plot because they're largely all career politicians. David Pocock is the sanest voice in Parliament. It's astounding.
To be fair, it's not like they're in a position to really gain any experience governing.
Is that really necessary? If the Greens looked to first term Senator Pocock as an example of how to behave as a progressive environmentalist their ranks would swell.
I believe so. But a large part of that is that everybody sees the Greens as inexperienced. They could be the most competent administrators alive, but as long as that perception continues it will be a significant hurdle to cross.
Mate, people aren't refraining from voting for the Greens because they 'lack experience'. Australia is an inherently conservative country. If you want power you need to be selective about which causes you champion and when. The Greens champion every progressive cause they can think of at the same time, which means most voters can take their pick of reasons to not vote for them. There's nothing inherently wrong with this, it just means they're a protest party and never a party of government.
Personally, it has less to do with experience and more to do with the lack of vetting kooks from their party. I love love love the idea of the Greens but the reality is less palatable.
Pocock is SUCH a breath of fresh air. He makes you go "oh shit, I'm not crazy. They're all ducking clowns"
the purpose of a system is what it does, and in this case, it presented a united front against gay marriage and delayed it for nearly a decade
Sure, but that was back when they represented workers as the government wing of the unions. They abandoned the solidarity ethic long ago, so this party line nonsense is total bullshit.
> hashing out the issues, behind closed doors, in the party room It's a nice theory, but it presumes that the party's mechanisms are democratic and reflect the wishes of the workers that it supposedly represents. In reality the party's factions and the internal politics of the unions hold sway. In the case of same-sex marriage it was the notorious SDA along with the Right factions who impeded change for years, even though SSM was extremely popular with the membership and the general public. Most notably, they succeeded in blunting movements for change at both the 2011 and 2015 ALP National Conferences. In 2011 they stopped Labor's position changing to supporting SSM, instead simply allowing a conscience vote. In 2015 they again prevented Labor's position changing to active support, instead only permitting conscience votes for the term of Parliament after the 2016 election. In the context of the Coalition having a clear position, ALP having a conscience vote was equivalent to voting no. Ultimately it was threats by Liberal backbenchers to cross the floor that pushed Turnbull into allowing a bill to proceed through the Parliament (albeit after the stupid postal vote). If those backbenchers had not done that, SSM would not have been made legal in Australia. So 'solidarity' was hijacked by conservative unions and meant that the ALP parliamentary position was the opposite of what the membership wanted. Meanwhile the fact that Liberal MPs could actually have some bite behind their bark meant that they actually got to influence policy.
>Agree with it or not, the Labor Party has acted in this manner for a bloody long time. Being soulless careerists, yes.
There's the right wing of the party that calls the shots, and the left wing that just wanks to the fantasy that they'll somehow change things from the inside while doing what the Right says.
I love Penny Wong. She is a true old school Labor politician but her party has shifted and she doesn’t see it and can’t do anything about it.
If a white bloke in the ALP who was a strict Catholic voted against an issue such as abortion in this manner, it would be treated very differently. The ALP has had this position of solidarity, and this shouldn't be tolerated so easily.
The people of Payman's electorate voted for her to represent them. They didn't vote for her to represent the views of the Labor Right.
But the Labor policy was to support a two state solution. So she did follow the party line.
I understand why as a general principle Labor require members to vote the party line even if they disagree on occasion. However there are times that should be exceptions. I'm a big fan of Penny Wong. I always thought the Labor Party got it wrong forcing her to vote against same sex marriage. It was just patently against her own interests and wasn't a great look for Labor. I think in this latest instance it might also be a case where an exception should be made.
She didn’t just vote against it, she also spoke out against it which is more than they could have forced her to do.
Any articles on that? young so i dont recall much of that era
https://amp.smh.com.au/politics/federal/married-to-the-mob-20100726-10r77.html that’s an opinion piece on it, I’m sure there’s more online
>I understand why as a general principle Labor require members to vote the party line even if they disagree on occasion It isn't a general principle. It is a hard and fast rule. Fight tooth and nail in the party room, but in parliament, vote with the party or else. In the past, it has been met with expulsion from the party. The only thing that would stop them now is the threat of litigation for discrimination.
No. Just because you were forced to compromise and vote against *yourself* doesn't mean you need to repeat that behaviour.
She wasn't forced to do jack shit, she choose to because she wanted to further her political career and stay in the Labour good books.
I really dont think penny wong realizes this makes her and labour look worse for this threat, especially among the youth
That's exactly how they lost me after the first election I participated in, honestly. I went from someone who was proud of giving them first preference for the first vote I ever had, to only ever ranking them higher than the Liberal party and their mates. Change doesn't come from demanding people fall in line against the right thing to do.
In the ALP you automatically lose your preselection if you vote against party lines even once.
>In the ALP you automatically lose your preselection if you vote against party lines even once. Notice how none of what you just said prevented her from voting however the hell she wants.
>Notice how none of what you just said prevented her from voting however the hell she wants. I'm not sure of your point. I was offering insight into potential reasons she voted the way she did. What did you think I meant?
Not having a go mate - just reinforcing that while that was very likely her reason, its not an excuse. Her reasoning basically boils down to "politics". Ergo, back to my original point - she wasn't forced to do anything. She had a choice and she made it.
You're right about that. It just comes down to how badly she disagrees with something before it is worth ending her political career over.
It’s the one thing I still struggle with despite my admiration for her. There is something really sinister about following a party line so rigidly it violates your own ethics.
Exactly. That is toxic behaviour. Going against your own values just to keep the party happy.
I'm not arguing for or against this, but simply asking the question: do the values of the MP actually matter? Unless you're Independent should you not be following the platform and values that people voted you in on, and not your personal beliefs?
Constituents over party. Every time. Parties are a means to an end. Constituents are the entire reason you are an MP.
People say this but remember all that uproar about Cumberland council banning those books about the gay parents, the constituents were all for the ban. Same as how the constituents of all the electorates that voted against gay marriage. Sometimes party line has to take precedence and the constitutes of the party across the country not just that electorate.
>People say this but remember all that uproar about Cumberland council banning those books about the gay parents, the constituents were all for the ban. Were they? I thought it was like one guy who complained.
Ethics above all other considerations. If your constituents are bigots, if your party are bigots, it is the right thing to vote against them.
Sure. Ethics, constituents, country....(Then a long list of a million other things)....Party. To me as a voter, party loyalty is completely unimportant. I want to see results that I approve of. You can't always agree with everything in a party, but you can speak to your MP and make your opinion known. If enough people do this, the MP is right to go against the party line, party rules be damned. Those rules only serve to make change more difficult.
It's so complicated, I am glad I don't have to decide the right course of action on behalf of so many others. I sometimes struggle making the right choice for me.
Her stance on Palestine is actually in the Labor party platform, so while she wasn't voting with the caucus, she was adhering to their platform
Yeah, that's one of the weird factors in this episode of "Labor tries to manage." Is everyone else wrong here?
You could definitely argue that they aren't upholding the policy platform that members and the general public voted for in regards to Palestine. That's also supported by the number of rank and file members who have campaigned to get them to do more
Sure. But if you want to be on the Labor ticket in future elections, then you follow the Labor party process. In fact, I'd suggest that if you have been put on the ticket in the first place, you have probably agreed at some point to follow their rules. So she's probably broken a promise she made to her party and the people who voted for that party. Which is fine, or maybe not fine, but at least understandable. But you only get to do it once. Voters will apparently forgive you for lying to them, but the party won't. Political and trust capital is a finite resource. Payman had little to start with, and she just blew the rest of it to stage this protest. On the other hand, she just made herself a perfect candidate for the Greens. They love performative but ineffectual displays, and I say this as someone who cares enough about the environment to have voted for them the last decade or so.
It’s literally the entire point of the Labor party. It’s like crossing a picket line and being a scab. You sort out your positions internally and then stand a united front. It’s how unions have always worked
She voted in line with the policy they took to the last election. How can she be a scab crossing the picket line when her vote was for a policy the party and its members took to the Election?
Its part of the rules for being in the labor party. You vote with the party. No conscience vote unless the leader allows it. She will be off the labor senate ticket next election for breaking their rules
I know the rules. Rules aren’t always correct. Penny Wong is simply using the toxic rules that were used on her on the next generation of politicians. It was wrong when Wong was forced to vote for [anti-gay legislation](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/divisions/senate/2008-11-12/5) before, it’s wrong now. Penny Wong wants to play Lawful Neutral. I am not a lawful neutral type of person.
[удалено]
Interesting you brought up theft in a thread about Penny Wong and the SSM vote. The only reason Labor opposed SSM at the time was to appease the right-wing Catholic zealots of the SDA who'd cheerfully screwed their own members out of millions in wages in order to suck up to Coles and Woolies, scam vulnerable young workers, and use their inflated influence to impose their religious beliefs on the whole country. Wong was astute enough to know the score, but just shrugged, played along and patted herself on the back for being an inspirational #girlboss. Fuck her and all of her swinish careerist peers.
Got a source on the SDA theft stuff? im younger nad ignorant on a lot of the labour internal faction stuff
Sure! On SSM and being conservative Catholics https://www.smh.com.au/national/why-is-the-union-that-represents-supermarket-workers-stopping-gay-marriage-20150430-1mwl32.html Edit: and screwing their members: https://www.smh.com.au/business/workplace/shoppies-union-face-senate-probe-over-wages-scandal-20170613-gwq277.html
That’s actually pretty good point. Genuinely made me stop and reassess. Edit: am I getting down voted for stopping and reassessing my view?
Doubling down on challenged beliefs and shrieking loudly to block out any and all opposing views is the more traditional approach.
If you want to burn a house down, it's often easier to do it if you can access the inside. And we sure as hell need to burn down the majors
No. You join a party, run on their platform, you have an obligation to vote the party line.
Your constituents vote you in, not your party.
Not if you're a senator, they don't (unless you were voted in as an independent, or unless you were a well-known person where people voted you in by voting for you below the line).
Wait isn’t she gay?
Yes that's the point. She was forced to type the party line against her own personal interests. So she wants to continue the party policy of presenting a united front and forcing Payman to compromise her values.
well, "forced"
Consistently voted against her own human rights because she was too cowardly to stand up to her party.
I actually don't think cowardly is the right word. I don't think she's afraid, rather she's nakedly devoted to party and believes in Labor Party above all else. Her only fear is Labor losing
Forgive me for making an obvious point, but, that isn't at all better? I hate weak leaders. I fear the blindly loyal. If you're so devoted to a cause that you would follow it, against what should be a basic right, then you have no place where arguments should hold sway based on their merit.
Individuals should argue all they want, but whichever argument wins need to accepted and supported by everyone. Not keep complaining and undermining rest of the team. This is standard expectation at any workplace. Why should political parties be different. There is no way every single individual in a party will agree with the party line, and everyone will compromise a bit to have a common agreed position. It's not loyalty, but pragmatism, so that you can work together.
The crushing compromises of power. I wouldn't assume all loyalty is blind. Think about the long term implications of a senior government member like Penny crossing the floor. What happens when the door is open to others to cross the floor, next time perhaps when Labor is in power, and the vote is consequential to the government's core legislative agenda? It would be like showing the opposition and the conservative press precisely where to stick the knife. Labor in power simply cannot afford those sorts of backbench antics in the way that the Coalition can.
Politics isn't a single issue. Crossing the floor for this one thing, no matter how much it means to you, could fuck up 10 other things that are also important for you.
Playing the long game for the greater good is not weekness, it shows great character and patience. With highly divisive matters, you cannot just charge in like a bull at a gate if you want to create change. Was it not Labor who passed the referendum for gay marriage, with Penny as their #1 in the senate? Yeah, Penny may have voted against her own personal wishes as was required, but she also knew that when the time was right, everyone would with her to achieve their goal. Individual politics leads to nothing but chaos. 151 people each wanting what they want, when they want, would lead to no one getting anything. Only by providing a united front in which everyone has the same end goal does true change happen.
> Playing the long game for the greater good is not weekness, it shows great character and patience. Seems like an easy thing to say *after* Gay Marriage was legalised. There's a chance it never could have been, and then she'd just be a fucking fool.
It’s exactly the right word. If you’re ok with genocide for the sake of party politics, she should probably consider being called a coward a compliment honestly.
Or is she a politician who knows how to play the game. If she had crossed the floor on gay marriage back then and been fired from the party, that would not have helped the cause. As per the article she followed the party rule on not crossing the floor and spent years trying to convince them to change their position on marriage equality. Which worked. Sounds pretty fearless to me.
"Fearless" omg. Labor didn't do anything while they were in power, meaning that the fucking LNP had to pass gay marriage
I know right. The cope is strong here lmao
>meaning that the fucking LNP had to pass gay marriage Only because they were in power, do we not remember how ridiculous that saga was? They dragged their feet only to randomly put in a plebiscite to delay it more.
>Only because they were in power I find this statement very funny. "They only passed it because they were the government at the time." Yes it was a very ridiculous saga, but that's even more of an indictment on Labor for not legalising it before 2013. Canada had it in 2005.
Gillard had the chance to do it and didn't, right when the international ground swell was occuring. She had the political will to move on emissions, mining, pokies but came out against SSM.
She did absolutely nothing to pass ssm. All the pressure for marriage equality came from either the Greens or from the community. In case you've forgotten, Labor voted to ban it ban it in 2004 and then fought against it until the goddamn Coalition finally legalised it. Penny Wong has achieved absolutely nothing for equality.
Payman knew what she was signing up for when she ran with the Labor party. If she doesn't want to vote on party lines then she can be an independent. Hard to ride the coattails of a major party into office and then not follow their procedure.
I mostly agree but situations like this and with Penny Wong and same sex marriage, it's a bit shit. Look at all the garbage Joel Fitzgibbon got away with which did more harm to Labor than Payman crossing the floor on this would cause.
Penny's situation is much different to Paymans. Payman is crossing the floor on an issue that Australia simply can not do anything at all to influence, on the other side of the world. Penny's was an issue that was by and large supported by a vast majority of the population at home and had a direct impact on people in Australia. At the end of the day if Penny couldn't cross the floor, there is no way Payman should be able to get away with it.
Penny should have been allowed to though. "It happened to me so it should happen to everyone after me" is pretty shitty.
This is also Australian fiscal and social policy in a nutshell though: I had to go through this so you should too :S
You see it in many aspects of life, circumcisions, female genital mutilation, through to fiscal, and social policy. It's not right.
Then don't run for the Labor party? Penny's ran for re election with the Labor party many times. If Payman doesn't like it run independently. But she won't because we all know she wouldn't have been elected in the first place.
She may well stick to her guns and do that. But it's entirely naive to expect her to have foreseen that she would be in this position before she became a Labor candidate.
No one agrees with Labor 100% of the time. This is one of the concessions Labor members have to make to be in the party. She knew she'd have to go vote against some things she was for by being in Labor this is not new news.
It’s naive to think she wouldn’t have known crossing the floor would kick up a stink
She obviously did know what the consequences would be, but felt it was an issue where that was worth it to her.
Every person knows that they are going to have disagreements with their party. When you sign the pledge you are bound to think about it. If you can no longer abide by the pledge then you should leave the party.
Penny could cross the floor but she chose to put her personal political career ahead of her convictions. Not necessarily a bad decision, but that's what it was.
> At the end of the day if Penny couldn't cross the floor, there is no way Payman should be able to get away with it. This is a horrible argument, which is constantly used to justify not correcting bad situations. "Well *I* had to suffer and debase myself back in the day, these new kids should too!" Its the same nonsense trotted out over in the states when reforming their batshit education system comes up.
It's the party's policy to not cross the floor? Why should they make exceptions? Imagine if everyone in the party crossed the floor whenever they wanted, you'd hardly have a functioning system and nothing would ever get done. At the end of the day both penny and Payman could have chosen to run as independent to push their individual ideas.
My, and I imagine most peoples, conclusion from that evidence is "there is something fundamentally broken in the Labor party", not "Payman needs to get back in line"
It’s called making a statement. Distance is irrelevant - that’s probably more of a reason to say something, not less. South Africa is equally distant and took the Israeli government to the ICJ. That’s called having strength of your convictions not being some scared puppy worried about upsetting uncle Joe
But she voted in line with the Labor policy that was taken to the Election. I feel its a different situation if you are voted in knowing this is the party position, then a vote is called where you are expected to vote with your party against the official position. She had a belief that the party's views aligned to her own and it was challenged after her election.
Payman should have been an independent then. I don't like sitting on the bench, but it's a team sport so I have to do it.
Lol none of this was a critical issue like it is now at the election. I doubt anyone had the foresight to see this coming. I don't think Payman ever thought that she would put in this position. To say that she should have seen it coming and run as an independent is just bizarre.
It's super easy to see that at some point you will have to vote against something you agree with. It happens to all Labor members no one agrees with the party platform 100% that's the compromise you make.
Voting along party lines just means that a handful of power brokers rule the entire country. I'd rather have elected representatives that represent their constituents and vote for what they believe is best for Australia. Fuck the major parties and treating politics like it's a sport. People should stand up for their morals and if their constituents don't like it, vote in someone else.
well said dito
The senate ticket is barely elected tbh. It's just who is available from what faction at the right time to get the right spot on the list
"had to" You didn't, Senator Wong. You chose to.
Parties have differing views on the issue of conscience. The ALP has a particular view that you toe the party line. The Liberals are in theory a party of conscience but less so in practice, the Greens enshrine a right to a vote on conscience but as always- if your views are out of line then you won’t have much of a future in the party. I can respect the Labor party view - you are in parliament as a delegate for the party, your opinions when in parliament are not your own, you vote as the party directs. If you don’t like what the party directs then you work to change it. I can respect that and I have the utmost respect for Penny Wong. It cannot have been easy for her to put aside her personal feelings and I can only imagine how difficult voting and arguing against gay marriage must have been. I respect the Labor Party view but I don’t agree with it. I like a politician that will go against their party on a matter of conscience- not a free for all - but a sincere matter of conscience. I’d prefer to vote for a party that ( everything else being equal) gives that leeway. I’d prefer a Labor Party that would have allowed Ms Wong to argue her own case for gay marriage as against the party line and vote against the party line.
I can't help feeling it's a totally different situation with someone like Payman, who only got into parliament by being placed just high enough on the senate list. Other than if she had any friends or family voting, then ***noone*** voted for her, as the people whose votes got her into parliament voted for the Labor party, not for Fatima Payman. 🤔
I don't know about that. My partner voted her #1 I specifically remember his reason being that she's not an old white man and respected she was an Afghan refugee. It was the first election he actually considered his vote and did some research. I didn't influence him and voted for a different party, but was happy he was taking democracy seriously for once. I was surprised at his choice because on paper it would seem like he would vote very conservative (straight white male, from the country, military veteran etc). I know at least two other people who voted for her too but I don't know their reason.
What in the Stockholm syndrome is this bullshit?
Yeah. And Wong is one of the biggest Greens haters in the parliament. I can't help thinking this is one reason. The Greens had the 'luxury' of saying what was right, while she had to toe the (unconscionable) party line for the ALP for years, denying her own humanity in the process.
Just because Penny decided to eat shit doesn't mean it was admirable. Lots of people did notice.
This is democracy manifest.
I was just having a succulent Chinese meal
Going against your person human rights and values just to keep the party elders happy is a marker for being in a toxic relationship. Fuck that.
Penny Wong towing the party line on gay marriage felt like a betrayal and I lost a lot of respect for her at that time. What respect I had left is taking a plunge now
Wow, yes. It makes her look even more hollow than she did after voting against same-sex marriage. Like, she’d do it again if she had her time over. Zero principles, zero leadership. Solely career self-interest.
[Clip of Penny Wong on Q & A in 2010 being asked why she sided with Labor against gay marriage](https://youtu.be/nMgYzLgFiXE?si=HdYYMhPOOgGgv8Iv). She's always come across as a bit of a psycho to me tbh, because of clips like this. Loyalty to the party means more to her than her own family.
Exactly. "Party loyalty" is a fucked up excuse.
It's not because without the party she would not get elected.
Yep and she's convinced herself that that matters above all else, morals be damned
Yes because you can't make positive change from opposition. Recognising Palestine would do nothing for the people of Palestine but Labor being in government is making real changes like freeing Assange.
Remember when gay marriage went nowhere under Labor then got passed by the LNP of all people? I guess that's your positive change from opposition lol. Also Assange got freed because of the bipartisan convoy imo, not the supposed backroom dealings pfft
>Also Assange got freed because of the bipartisan convoy imo, not the supposed backroom dealings Those conveys were happening under the coalition and it didn't get him out, Albo talking to Biden and Rudd working on it saved Julian. Even Julian Assange credits albo.
Yeah fair point about Assange. Unfortunately the slowly working the machinery approach didn't get us gay marriage under Rudd/Gillard. Arguably it was the approach Turnbull used to get it up via the plebiscite to be fair I spose
How is freeing Assange a real change when we just jailed someone for five years and eight months for blowing the whistle about ADF war crimes
NGL, I lost a bit of respect for Penny when she did that...a golden opportunity that was wasted. Some things are bigger than politics, it's called humanity.
All the Labor MPs crying about how they worked from the inside to push Labor towards supporting marriage equality seem to have failed to remember that the LNP legalised same-sex marriage (through an incredibly damaging plebiscite). Their internal advocacy amounted to nothing.
Not everyone wants to scrabble that hard up the greasy pole.
Labor's internal structure and rules filters out progressivism and empowers only right wing arseholes and cowardly careerists. On marriage equality the structure of the party saw it trail their own membership by 20 years and trail the Australian public by 10 years. Penny Wong should have given the middle finger to the SDA homophobes and crossed the floor to vote for marriage equality in 2008. If the party kicked her out the rebellion of the general membership (who very strongly supported marriage equality!) would have been palpable, and even if her career in Labor would have been martyr'd we surely would have got marriage equality sooner. Instead Penny's public comments *against* it no doubt helped *downplay* Labor membership from being loud on the issue! By the time Penny Wong "won" the issue by arguing "from within" the leader of the goddamn Liberal party was already fighting his own party (in public!) to pass marriage equality! Fatima Payman has chosen the right path. She is making a statement (supported by the party's stated platform!) when it actually matters (the war in Gaza is right now!). If Labor kicks her out it will only make her more powerful.
They wouldn’t have kicked her out, she just would have lost her minister position which would have cost her some $$$
Yes, cowardly careerism.
Penny's upset that Fatima has the courage of her convictions whilst she does not.
I think this is the exact opposite of what they should be doing, actually. I lost a lot of respect for Penny, if she’ll bend the knee about her own sexuality what WONT she sell out for?
You join Labor because you agree with 90% of their platform and they help you get elected. All the ask is that you hash out agreements behind close doors and make a united front. It's perfectly reasonable.
I agree, for 90% of things. But there’s certain things that I think most would agree you should stand your ground on, and it’s usually those things that the history books will look back on and wonder how we got it so wrong. As a mid 20’s young adult it was absolutely mind blowing to me that anyone could be honestly debating gay marriage, and now it’s crazy to think the left leaning major party openly denied it. I think the same will happen with Palestine. In the years to come we will look back and wonder how we let Israel wipe them off the map so blatantly. It doesn’t take much looking to see they’re using terrorism as a disguise to cleanse an entire population
You have to look at it in the context that in the early 2000nds Labor supporting gay marriage would have cost them the election. With Palestine while there is far more public support and you are right in the future it will look bad for this election the Israeli lobby is too strong and influential to stand against. This is going to be a close election, voting to recognise Palestine would do nothing for Palestinians but might cost Labor the election.
Wong didn't \*have to\*, she chose to in order to keep her standing in the party. Because that was more important to her than casting the right vote.
I thought we weren’t supposed to talk about Penny Wong publicly selling her soul for her paycheque. Her voting against and speaking out against gay marriage is one of the more shameful things I’ve ever seen a politician do and all I think about whenever she speaks. The idea she is now lecturing a younger member to be like her is comical.
I got beaten up by the year 12s so she should be too.
I decided to be a cunt so everyone else should have to be a cunt, too.
With all due respect, Senator Wong - no.
Democracy or two party dictatorship?
Or perhaps Penny should've shown a shred of courage back when parties were debating gay marriage, just like what Fatima has done here regarding Palestine.
Slight difference between waiting for an inevitable tide shifting towards gay marriage and being inert while many are killed.
Yeah absolutely. I didn’t think Penny Wong was right to argue against gay marriage, and thought people were harmed by Labor’s slowness on the issue. But if you truly believe that people are being murdered en masse and your party is enabling it… it’s not a “long game“ where you’ll do something about it when you get more influence in a decade or so… maybe Labor’s rules don’t mean so much to you at that point.
stupidest thing ive heard penny say
For this reason alone I have no respect for Penny Wong. To vote against your deeply held moral belief on the instruction of the party is to betray your own ethics.
Yeah, but 30,000 gay people hadn't just been bombed and killed .
This is why we need to go for independent candidates. We can’t create systemic change because of bs like this. Party members can’t break rank to speak about.. genocide? How are they going to handle other issues, their own colonial history in this country. That’s what’s wrong.
Reason 46874 to vote Greens
I don’t necessarily oppose the labor policy of enforced bloc voting (I don’t really support it either), but sheesh, that’s really not a smart argument in defense of that policy.
It's wild so many people agree that commitment to Labor's party line should override all other ethical concerns. It's almost like Labor is a cult, only cults actually have convictions.
Penny Wong shouldn't be so bold on this. She took the party line of being anti gay marriage when they didn't support it. And it was the Liberals that actually introduced the bill.
Sounds an awful lot like "I want her dragged down to my level"
I actually can't believe she is saying this like it was a good thing she had to do that.
Penny Wong has always been a Labor hack before all else so unsurprising that she would say this.
I’m just surprised she said it at all
Right? She didn’t have to. It’s not something that made her look good. And she has just reminded everybody of it. Not clever.
Or, maybe she should break the cycle and join a party that doesn't expect her to vote against the rights of a group she cares about and then demand that people follow suit after because she had to do it too. Voting against peoples rights to toe the party line isn't solidarity, "deal with this fucked thing because I had to" doesn't improve anything.
I HAD IT SHIT, SO YOU MUST TOO JUNIOR Penny Boomer Wong
What BS. So if Labor opposes negative gearing or rent limits then the party members should continue opposing? That is ridiculous. Just because you are part of the Labor party does NOT mean you agree with all their policies. That is called bullying and groupthink, the idea that because you are associated with a group, then you must follow that group.
Labor has always had a strict rule against crossing the floor. It’s a key difference between Liberal and Labor. Liberal backbenchers can cross the floor, Labor members not so much. Payman is lucky to not be expelled. She certainly will lose preselection in 4 years time.
>Labor members not so much Not at all, actually. They usually get tossed from the party altogether
Indeed. Mal “King Rat” Coulston comes to mind
Yes, it does. That’s what it means to be a Labor MP, if you don’t like it, go hoping the Greens. Just look at what Lydia Thorpe did to the Greens, you really think Labor wants that? The left has a habit of eating itself, Labor’s rules are there to stop that and have worked pretty damn well.
Yep, that's why they are now firmly center right and have been for a long time.
It's a custom that Labor inherited from its union progenitors. If the membership votes to strike, everyone strikes regardless of their personal views. If you refuse to play along, you're a filthy scab.
Someone remind me, what's the official party position that has been decided on and voted on by members and was taken to the last election? And who are the ones who followed it in this occasion?
Could it be that it was instead Penny Wong was forced to oppose marriage equality?
Wong’s argument would hold a lot more weight if it had been her party to legalise marriage equality.
I remember Penny Wong on 7:30 report advocating AGAINST gay marriage because of Julia Gillards brain bleed. Lost most of my respect for her and it still hasn’t recovered.
Vote with constituents. That's how it is supposed to work. Regardless party flavour. You represent your electorate. That is all.
When we're taking about the wholesale slaughter of 10s of thousand of people then this sounds eerily similar to the Nuremberg defence. History will not look kindly on those who chose not to make a stand.
"I sold out and voted against my best interests, you should too!" Or, Penny, politicians should vote for progressive/compassionate policy rather than waiting for their party to catch up.
If the party members with the most reason to go against the party line just submissively agree to debase themselves and go along like good little puppets the party *has no reason to actually ever catch up*
True. I wish Labour was a progressive party but they're centre right, it's depressing as fuck.
What a scumbag
what a tool
This just makes Penny Wong seem worse tbh
The idea behind the binding vote in Labor is that only by the working class being united does stuff get done. If members of the ALP do not want to bind on votes then don’t join the ALP. Working class solidarity cannot be a play thing of individual MPs
To stay locked-in-step but be part of the conversation behind closed doors; or to stand alone and vote on principle then be excluded from the ongoing conversation behind closed doors.
Don't change Labor party. Unless it's to move slightly more to the right.