Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

19274Re: [GreenLeft_discussion] Re: LATHAM TURNS NASTY

Expand Messages
  • MICHAEL BERRELL
    Jun 28, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Dave must be having a bad hair day or have gotten out on the wrong side of
      the bed or something he does seem to be rather cantankerous of late or
      curmudgeonly even.

      Perhaps Dave could take a leaf out of Mao's book and write a piece "On
      Contradictions"

      But seriously I guess I am a crazy mixed up kind of guy. I blame the
      parents. I guess I recognise that unless Federal Labor gets its act together
      we're just going to be lumbered with an interminable period of
      Liberal/National Government and its just going to get worse and worse. Imean
      for heavens sake some commentator was even suggesting last week that John
      Howard may still be Prime Minister at 80!

      I think what I said about Latham was absolutely right. He turned out to be a
      bad egg. Labor's performance at the last election was so poor thats it
      highly unlikely they'll make up the ground at the next election and hence my
      statement that Labor's decision to install Latham as leader will cost them
      at least a further six years in opposition at least.

      For what's it worth I think there will be a significant swing back to Labor
      at the next election in response to the Howard Government's policies in
      Industrial Relations. However this swing will be concentrated in Labor's
      heartland as it was in 1998 and Labor could get up to 51.3% of the two party
      preferred vote, as it did in 1998 and still not win enough seats to form
      government.

      What we saw in 2004 was an election decided on values with christian
      fundamentalist parties rising to the fore, in 2007 class issues will
      prevail. Someone said to me the other day that Howard's Industrial Relations
      policies are the best thing that could happen to Labor, I mean if Labor
      can't revive under these circumstances it never will.

      Having said that I do acknowledge the value of WSWS. I'd like to say they're
      rotten and talk a lot of codswallop but I honestly can't say that. By all
      means Dave engage with what they have to say, criticise the articles that I
      send to the list, tell us why they are wrong and where you disagree but
      don't just simply shoot the messenger. Actually in response to your last
      criticism of WSWS I was seriously going to evaluate what I think the
      organisations strengths and weaknesses are not only from an organisational
      point of view but also ideologically, and I will do that because I think its
      worth doing.

      As I said before I can't comment on what the organisation did or on its
      relationship with other left groups in the early 1970s that was just way
      before my time so I can't be held accountable for it.

      Cheers Michael
    • Show all 7 messages in this topic