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

19581Re: [GreenLeft_discussion] Re: Fighting Howard's attacks

Expand Messages
  • Doug Lorimer
    Jul 5 12:15 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Bob Gould: In examining the articles in Seeing Red, the posts of Marce
      Cameron
      > and the coverage in Green Left Weekly, I formed the opinion that the
      > DSP leadership regards the transfer of industrial powers from the
      > states to the federal government as a matter of little importance.

      So apparently do some rather prominent members of your own party. See
      http://www.actu.asn.au/public/news/1116919734_20128.html and
      http://www.actu.asn.au/public/news/1118377855_18327.html. Will you be
      accusing them of ``giving objective assistance to the key strategic part of
      Howard's agenda''?


      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "bobgould987" <bobgould987@...>
      To: <GreenLeft_discussion@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2005 4:09 PM
      Subject: [GreenLeft_discussion] Re: Fighting Howard's attacks


      > By Bob Gould
      >
      > In examining the articles in Seeing Red, the posts of Marce Cameron
      > and the coverage in Green Left Weekly, I formed the opinion that the
      > DSP leadership regards the transfer of industrial powers from the
      > states to the federal government as a matter of little importance,
      > thereby giving objective assistance to the key strategic part of
      > Howard's agenda.


      >
      > In my comments I raised the possibility that I may have got it wrong
      > and if so the DSP might be expected to respond with a rounded
      > exposition of its views on the Howard transfer plans.
      >
      > All I get in response is the kind of double talk with which I'm quite
      > familiar in arguments with the Stalinists over many years.
      >
      > The last statement before Fredman's statement that he, personally,
      > didn't support the transfer of powers, was Marce Camerons saying that
      > the transfer was a matter of little importance because neoliberal
      > state Labor governments could use the state systems for their own
      > purposes, or words to that effect.
      >
      > Now the DSP line seems to have to changed a bit, but the only hint at
      > that is a one-line personal assertion from Nick Fredman that he
      > doesn't support the transfer. He didn't say the DSP opposed the
      > transfer, just that he did.
      >
      > In Norm's angry response to Ed Lewis, he doesn't say that the DSP
      > opposes the transfer, he just points to Nick Fredman's personal statement.
      >
      > If I've got it wrong, it would be comparatively easy for the DSP
      > leadership, and/or people in the leadership, to make a rounded general
      > statement about the DSP's attitude to the transfer of industrial powers.
      >
      > The DSP will have to do this eventually, because the transfer of
      > powers from the states to the federal government is emerging as the
      > critical chink in the armour of Howard and the ruling class, and it
      > looks like emerging as the critical issue that may lead to some Tory
      > political figures voting against the transfer in the Senate, which may
      > stymie Howard's whole agenda.
      >
      > If I've got it wrong, and the DSP leadership opposes the transfer of
      > powers, or if it has changed its previous line, and now opposes the
      > transfer, it should explain its views.
      >
      > I've been writing about this question for two or three months, and
      > I've set out my views at length, particularly in the paper I delivered
      > at the Labour History conference, which is available on Ozleft.
      > http://members.optushome.com.au/spainter/Brucepaper.html If the DSP
      > leadership is stuck for adequate historical information on the
      > transfer, they're more than welcome to take up some of my arguments. I
      > don't have copyright on them.
      >
      > After a considerable period of downplaying the importance of the
      > transfer of powers, in such a way as to give objective support to
      > Howard's agenda, it's not adequate to accuse me of being delusion and
      > lying about the DSP's position without spelling out the DSP's position
      > on the disputed question. Failure of the DSP spell out its position
      > clearly can only lead to further misunderstanding, if any
      > misunderstanding has occurred, which is still not clear.
      >
      > Accusing me of being delusional about the DSP and not replying to my
      > detailed assembly of what appears to be evidence about the DSP's
      > position, isn't an adequate response on this important question. If
      > Norm and the DSP leadership believe I'm wrong, they could easily prove
      > that with a carefully developed argument against the transfer of powers.
      >
      > Failing that, Norm Dixon appears to be engaged in diversionary abuse
      > and smoke and mirrors.
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Green Left Weekly depends on your support!
      >
      > Subscribe to Green Left Weekly!
      > http://www.greenleft.org.au/subscribe.htm
      >
      > Make a donation to help Green Left Weekly continue!
      > http://www.greenleft.org.au/fogl.htm
      >
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
    • Show all 26 messages in this topic