In an “exclusive” splashed across the front page of today’s Australian, Canberra-based Sid Maher and Matthew Franklin reported “internal ALP polling” that seemed to say Jennifer Kanis was doomed in her quest to hold off the rising Greens tide in the looming Melbourne byelection.
While a poll in one small state district 800 kilometres from The Oz‘s principal newsroom doesn’t usually make it above the fold, in this case special circumstances applied — this appeared to be a straight up destabilisation drop to white-ant Julia Gillard.
As Crikey noted on Monday, the most intriguing element to come out of the NSW Right’s Greens smackdown is the leadership dynamic, as Kevin Rudd readies himself to be rescued from backbench purgatory by right-aligned unions and MPs.
While Maher and Franklin’s yarn was thin on detail, the (presumably federal, presumably Right) source made certain one telling metric was included: “three times as many people cited the performance of the federal government rather than the performance of the state government as the reason they would not vote for Labor”.
This amounted to a sanctioned attack on Gillard by the faction that backed her in February — now the Rudd-backing Left and elements of Right are starting to agree.
But on policy, the factions remain at war. Behind the scenes, and despite the apparent support of federal Left conveners like Stephen Jones, Labor’s inner-city left — those actually running Kanis’ campaign — has been troubled by the broader Greens attack launched by luminaries north of the Murray.
In the state seat of Melbourne, the ALP vote has nearly halved over the last 10 years. And it’s the prospect of one day losing their grip on the federal fiefdoms of Sydney and Grayndler (and continuing to be shut out in Melbourne) that has driven the dismay — even if the Liberals mimic NSW Labor’s bid to put the Greens last.
The Left’s Melissa Parke — who could conceivably come under pressure in Fremantle — provided some pushback yesterday, saying the move amounted to “mutually assured destruction”.
One senior Victorian Left source concurred, but said the NSW Right’s motivation went beyond the impact on the primary vote and stemmed from a deep-seated desire to see the destruction of the Left’s grassroots infrastructure.
“The real winners here are the Right of the party,” they said. “They’ll be happy as Larry that the rest of us are tied up in ethical knots while they get to continue to de-legitimise progressives both inside the party and out. The [Sam] Dastyaris, [David] Feeneys and [Michael] Danbys will be dancing a jig. Their logic is perfectly self-perpetuating: paint the Greens as extremists and ipso facto, anyone who holds their pinko-lefty beliefs is similarly invalid.”
On this view, the votes lost to the Greens are the same types of people that have for decades been the kind of professional or academic types that provide what’s left of Labor with its intellectual rigour and political legitimacy.
“Thinking people in those seats automatically know that the Greens’ policy on asylum seekers isn’t ‘loopy’ or radical … every time the federal party launches that line they have a gut reaction that makes them switch sides,” the source said.
“The federal parliamentary Left are letting their well-founded concerns about the safety of asylum seekers blind them to the true intentions of Dastyari and co … they might shore-up some Western Sydney electorates, but in doing so they’ll create Greens fortresses in what were traditional Labor heartlands.”
Sam Dastyari slammed that view as “farcical” this morning: “Inner city branches are crucial to Labor’s success and there’s been a great amount of support from parliamentary Left leaders including Stephen Jones and Doug Cameron,” he said.
“The Labor Party needs to be united and work together to achieve its social and political outcomes.”
But beneath the vitriol, there remains one possible point of convergence — a swelling of support for Rudd to retake the Lodge. Watch this space.
45 thoughts on “Labor Right white-ants Gillard as Rudd rises”
Matthew of Canberra
July 11, 2012 at 5:18 pmAaah, the selective quote:
Andrew Bolt:
Sometimes Crikey inspires the Marxist in me. Take this passage today:
….the votes lost to the Greens are the same types of people that have for decades been the kind of professional or academic types that provide what’s left of Labor with its intellectual rigour and political legitimacy.
Hugh (Charlie) McColl
July 11, 2012 at 5:46 pmCarlitosm, does it matter what the NSW (not national) party does or thinks on equal marriage etc?
SusieQ
July 11, 2012 at 6:02 pmAs a former ‘rusted on’ Labour voter, now a Green voter, I dispair at the state of Labour Australia wide and I’m darn sick of hearing from the Labour ‘right’ and their destructive policies and white anting. Maybe they need annihilation at the next Federal election to make them wake up to themselves!
Michael Wilbur-Ham (MWH)
July 11, 2012 at 6:14 pmWhat I find most strange about discussing politics is that people say things that clearly wrong as if they were facts.
Apart from religion, I can’t think of any other topic where falsehoods are treated as legitimate comments.
RUSSELL says:
[quote]Labor is as “progressive” as the Greens (i.e. has identical policies, because the Greens are not giving an inch away on any of then)[/quote].
Apart from a price on carbon (for which the Greens had to compromise incredibly to get Labor to pass), I’m having difficultly of thinking of a Greens policy which Labor has been ‘forced’ to adopt.
Gay marriage – no
Compassion to asylum seekers – no
The full mining tax – no
Protecting the Great Barrier Reef – no
Protecting native forests – no
Removing the 10 billion a year fuel subsidies – no
Moving up to the OECD average for education funding – no
Massive increase to public transport – no
Troops immediately out of Afghanistan – no
… and many more.
There would be plenty to debate if people knew what they were talking about. But with politics it seems that facts have little to do with what many people think.
Richard Letts
July 11, 2012 at 6:25 pmThe attack on the Greens means that if I am a Labor voter, I shouldn’t give them my preference.
But it also means that if I am a Greens voter, Labor misses out on my preference.
Talk of Labor giving Family First its preferences are dismaying and simply reinforce a picture of a party without principle. I think it has principles and has done some very good things and I wish it would stop presenting some other face.
Pedantic, Balwyn
July 11, 2012 at 6:28 pmIt shouldn’t surprise anyone that the ALP is in political decline. The “workers” were always after a better deal and the greedy policies of Abbott & Co are undoubtedly better suited to them. The “latte sipping”progressives, looking for fairness and equality, are likewise disenchanted over asylum policy and lack of guts in pokie reform, amongst many issues.
When the election to Government hangs on around 10% of the voters it doesn’t take Einstein to calculate that the swinging voters in the both the workers and progressive camps will feel alienated and move either left or right.
Sadly Labor’s Right and Left factions seem completely unable to get to grips with their predicament. It may well be too late, but if they don’t rapidly work together there is no way of stopping an Abbott Government.
Kevin Herbert
July 11, 2012 at 7:31 pmRudd’s like a 3 legged dog politically…from one angle he looks OK…but then…..
AR
July 11, 2012 at 8:22 pmGeoM &MikeS – the “Langer” strategy is valid. The AEC rules state that a ballot is valid if the intention of the voter is clear and someone deliberately exhausting their preference makes it clear that it is intentional rather than inept.
Unfortunately a lot of people are confused by the difference between the Lower House requirements of Federal & some of the States (Qld & NSW, offhand … anyone know tuthers?) will allow votes to exhausted after a single number.
As for the Senate, it is a disgrace that 97%+ choose to vote above the line which has NOT changed the rate of invalid votes, as claimed by HawKeating – it remains what it has been historically, approximately 5% No Show & 5% spoiled, which is over a million votes.
Russell
July 11, 2012 at 9:11 pmOh MWH, your poor dear… sorry I upset you, but I wrote – WHEN Labor is as “progressive..” not that they were… Clearly they are not, they still mange to attract 30% of Australian voters, rather than the progressives’ 12.
But I had a good laugh at one of your points, the one about “massive” investment in public transport. Where I live (Sydney) our previous State Labor government proposed a “massive” investment a few years ago – an underground Metro. The Greens opposed it, not because they disagreed with the idea – but on pathetic Nimby grounds!
Jenkin James
July 11, 2012 at 9:18 pmPedantic, I’m trying to work out how serious you are when you say:
“The “workers” were always after a better deal and the greedy policies of Abbott & Co are undoubtedly better suited to them.”
Is this like Lenin’s view that the proletariat could easily be stampeded in the wrong direction because of their base motivations? That they need an organisation of professional intellectuals to guide them, politically and morally?
Andrew Crook seems to think so, when he worries the Greens have attracted “the kind of professional or academic types that provide what’s left of Labor with its intellectual rigour and political legitimacy”.
You might give Crook the benefit of the doubt and suggest he thinks the ascendancy of ‘professional and academic types’ in the ALP has not been a great thing.
However, on face value, these comments seems like uber-snobbishness. It’s no wonder workers despise us on the Left.