Re: [luv-talk] Refugees (was Re: Vale Nelson Mandela)
Quoting "Tim Josling" <tim.josling@gmail.com>
It long puzzled me why people would take positions that involve a) Not actually articulating a policy
I wrote a few mails back about refugees organising their own camps and using refugees for regional development in Australia, boosting local economies where needed. It is supported by the formerly mentioned Melissa Parke, Member of Parliament for the seat of Fremantle. You will hear similar ideas from the member for Melbourne, Adam Bandt. That they are Labor and Green party members does not matter - it matters what they stand for. Liberal had people with conscience in their ranks before. Haven't heard much of it lately though. Making people plainly disappear in other third world countries without taking responsibility, without being accountable for them and without giving them a future is not a policy. It is plainly inhumane. Regards Peter
Petros <Petros.Listig@fdrive.com.au> wrote:
That they are Labor and Green party members does not matter - it matters what they stand for. Liberal had people with conscience in their ranks before. Haven't heard much of it lately though.
Requirements for "party discipline" presumably tend to quieten such voices, at least in public. This holds of course for Labor as well; the Greens do not appear to be so strict. I don't know what is said in private; I would expect the differences of opinion to be more openly expressed in the respective party room policy discussions. In general, I think this situation is bad for public political discourse and for democracy.
On Mon, 16 Dec 2013 21:38:23 Jason White wrote:
Requirements for "party discipline" presumably tend to quieten such voices, at least in public. This holds of course for Labor as well; the Greens do not appear to be so strict. I don't know what is said in private; I would expect the differences of opinion to be more openly expressed in the respective party room policy discussions.
I am a Greens voter and volunteer, I don't know what discussions happen between Greens politicians. However I can tell you that the Greens policies are agreed to by all candidates before the election. By being elected a Greens politician has agreed to the policies. Agreeing to such policies reduces the scope for debate about such things, so there isn't going to be a strong disagreement about such issues because the positions which abide by the policies don't allow it. Therefore any discussion doesn't have to be as secret. The major parties don't seem to have moral positions, they are prepared to give up almost anything to win votes. Then it becomes a debate as to which things to give up and the fact that what some people consider to be "core promises" might be regarded as "non-core promises" by some politicians is a secret for the party conference room. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
On 17/12/2013 6:02 PM, Russell Coker wrote:
However I can tell you that the Greens policies are agreed to by all candidates before the election. By being elected a Greens politician has agreed to the policies.
That alone is a reason NOT to vote Greens ... ever!!!! There are too many issues to all share the ONE voice. Politicians need to be more independent -- party machines should not exist, period. Cheers A.
On Tue, December 17, 2013 6:20 pm, Andrew McGlashan wrote:
There are too many issues to all share the ONE voice. Politicians need to be more independent -- party machines should not exist, period.
But they do, and unless you wish to make some pretty serious changes to the principle of freedom of association, they will continue to do so.
From the perspective of a political party, it is they who provide the name brand, the policy development, and spend an awful lot of money on campaigns and volunteer resources.
The other side of the deal is the person who is elected under their name should follow their policies. A candidate who does not may be sacked from the party and, of course, has the opportunity to stand again at the next election as an independent. This is usually a good gauge of many people voted for the party rather than the person. Typically if the independent candidate receives 10% of the vote, they've done well. I am not overly fond of binding caucuses (which is pretty much "democratic centralism", a la Lenin) and even less so of binding factional caucuses within a party ("a party within a party" approach). But I do recognise that they are a reality throughout the political life of most modern democracies. So, if one doesn't want to vote for a party that has binding caucuses, do remember that - except for the real cases of so-called "conscience votes" - all major political parties use them. You'd be restricting yourself to voting for independents - and who will you give preferences to? -- Lev Lafayette, BA (Hons), GradCertTerAdEd (Murdoch), GradCertPM, MBA (Tech Mngmnt) (Chifley) mobile: 0432 255 208 RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
participants (5)
-
Andrew McGlashan -
Jason White -
Lev Lafayette -
Petros -
Russell Coker