|
December 14, 2006
As we know the DLP was founded in the 1950s after an acrimonious split from the ALP, and helped keep Labor out of power at a federal and state level for more than two decades. It was in 1955 that a fiercely anti-communist, predominantly Catholic faction of the ALP, crossed the floor of the Victorian Parliament to destroy the Labor government of John Cain snr. So a proportion of Catholic Labor voters transferred their political allegiance to the DLP, and through it to the Liberal side of politics. A Tory working class was born and the DLP was the arch enemy.
John Spooner
Given this political history why would the apparatchiks in the Victorian ALP in the 2006 state election preference the DLP ahead of the Greens in some key upper house seats ? You can also ask: Why did the apparatchiks preference another right-wing party, Family First, to help it get elected to the Senate at the 2004 federal election? Was exhuming the DLP---it has not held a seat in a Victorian parliament since 1958, or in any Australian parliament for more than 30 years--- just another mistake by the oh-so-clever party machine men?
Of course, you would have to ask the ALP power-brokers in the party machine's powerful administrative committee these questions. Shouldn't they have to explain their decisions to the rank and file? We can, however, surmise that the deals to preference the DLP ahead of the Greens would have been given the okay by the inner Brack's circle. Senior ALP strategists confidently predicted that the Greens would grab the balance of power before the election. So we know the basic answer: the deals with the DLP were done to prevent the Greens from gaining control of the Legislative Council.
Are the Greens worse than the DAP or Family First? Obviously yes, for the socially conservative wing of the party, which is deeply opposed to the decriminalisation of abortion and gay civil unions. The Greens are the enemy. The DLP is a friend. Is this how the rank-and-file Labor members see things?
So what does that suggest about the ALP's commitment to social justice (eqality of opportunity +solidarityas a helping hand when times are tough?) sustainability and social reform? It's too lefty for the right wing machine men who detest the cosmopolitan, inner city professional class, have little time for social liberalism, and sideline the environment to keep the economy ticking over. This is the crowd that is content to be an echo of the Howard government and have little or no conception of market failure. Their "business as usual" means that emissions will take atmospheric carbon to a level likely to produce a final temperature increase by two degrees; to the point at which positive feedback mechanisms will start to trigger runaway climatic change.
So what does that say about the Bracks ALP? If the key feature of the 2006 Victorian election is that the Labor Party is the big winner and there was a shift to right-of-centre in the regions, then the ALP is socially conservative, and Steve Bracks is Victoria's first DLP Premier. Things will remain that way as long as the Liberals continued to be defined as free market, small government liberals.
|
Not having lived in Australia for very long, your post was very illuminating. I did not understand at the time of the last election why Labor would be preferencing Family First. I understand a little better now. I like the Australian voting system, but detest the machine politics, that steal your preferences by stealth. It is very challenging to vote below the line, especially if you have to vote for every candidate for your vote to be valid.