[Labor senator] Fatima Payman says she's been 'exiled' and is 'reflecting on future' within Labor : australianpolitics

[–] Instigate@aussie.zone 14 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Labor’s rules that prevent backbenchers from crossing the floor are frankly undemocratic, outdated and just generally against the Australian concept of a ‘fair go’. These words are gonna taste awful coming out of my mouth, but that’s the one thing the Libs have over Labor. At least they allow crossing the floor for backbenchers.

bleugh

Good on Senator Payman, she’s honestly a hero in my book. I wish I was a Westerner so I could vote for her again when she comes up for re-election. The idea that she should be beholden to the party line because she was a member of the party when she was voted in does a disservice to everyone who voted for her but don’t agree with literally every single policy they put forward (read: every single person who voted for her, because no voting bloc is a monolith).

Shame, shame Albo. Shame. Do better.

[–] Thecornershop@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

I agree with you on almost all points, apart from the line about all the people that voted for HER, I saw something yesterday that showed that the overwhelming number of votes for her Senate run were above the line, which said that people were therefore voting for the party rather than her as an individual.

Interesting point and based on how people talk and vote around me it makes sense, I don't think many people could actually tell you who their senators are.

But again, I agree that the party vote rule is terrible and should be removed.

[–] TheBananaKing@lemmy.world 13 points 4 months ago (1 children)

What is the fucking point of voting for individual candidates, if they're not allowed to act as individuals?

Representative democracy, my hairy balls. God damn lawful-netural amoral bastards can go straight to hell.

Tens of thousands of people dying, but all they give a shit about is their precious lockstep.

And no, Ms. Wong, spending ten years voting against gay marriage wasn't some noble sacrifice for the greater good, it simply means you were just as amoral then as you are now.

[–] Wooki@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

One policy party.

Good luck with that.

[–] makingStuffForFun@lemmy.ml 5 points 4 months ago

Vicious behaviour from Labour.

[–] swayevenly@lemm.ee 4 points 4 months ago (2 children)

I'm not sure I understand what the actual issue is here and/or the rules of Australian parliment. Are all party members supposed to vote the same?

[–] Sasha@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, the Labor party has a rule that you have to vote with the party. It's insane and she's the one person willing to standup to their genocidal policy

[–] swayevenly@lemm.ee 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

That's wild and it looks like they're one of the biggest politcal parties.

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 6 points 4 months ago

Yeah that's correct. Our system isn't as strongly two-party as the US, and it's getting less and less so over time, but for most of the last 80 years it's been two-party between Labor and the Liberal/National coalition. Labor being our equivalent of America's Democrats, and the Liberal-Nationals the Republicans.

But unlike America, party discipline in Australia tends to be very strong. Voting across party lines is very rare, especially in Labor.

[–] ikidd@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

Welcome to the parliamentary party system. There are some votes you can avoid the party line with, but if the whip declares it a party vote, it's a party vote and you won't get your party endorsement for the next election if you step out of line.

Once FPTP voting is done and there's a majority, it's pretty much a party dictatorship after that. Caucus decides what legislation will be enacted, and the caucus/cabinet is chosen by the leader. Any debate in the legislature is purely for show, and sometimes they'll take suggestions/amendments from the floor, but usually not.

It's another stupid system that barely beats a monarchy.

[–] naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (3 children)

To add some nuance to this most people vote by party in the senate.

Look I don't really agree with our system on so many levels and would probably come down on "we don't actually have a democracy" overall so please don't take this as some mewling defence of the status quo. replyguyinhale however she's a senator and for ~~better or for~~ worse most people vote by party in the senate. The number of superior, awesome, and somewhat democratically responsible people who vote below the line is a statistical blip, apparently most of yous are happy having your vote mysteriously distributed according to back-room fellatio.

So, if I was the sort of person who might become a labor mp or support the party, I could mount a defense of their loyalty pledge thing on the basis that particularly in the senate you are being voted in as a sort of embodied vote of the labor party's will and the party internal selection mechanism has deemed you specifically worthy of having a voice in the party room.

If that is their stance, and that is the implicit social contract of getting put on the ticket and receiving support from the party and its donors then you can sort of see where they are coming from. I have no idea if this is how most of the labor voters in her state feel or not but it's certainly how the party does.

For me? Well I actually believe in shit like right and wrong so...

[–] hanrahan@slrpnk.net 3 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Samilar thing with Lydia Thorpe when she spat the dummy and left the Greens, she now sits as an Independent in the Senate, cant see her being reelected?.

That aside N has the "waka" jumping bill )/(Maori for vlcanoe In think) where ifnyiu dintjatbits a nuekection.. Differ electoral system though.

While not disagreeing with you, I vote below the line , democracy should be a serious business, so I take it seriously m

[–] naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I vote below the line also and think labor is accepting and aiding a genocide here. Hence my tongue in cheek wording about people who vote below and my less tongue in cheek wording about right and wrong being real.

We can debate the merits of loyalty pledges till the cows come home but if you use them to silence people trying to stop or slow a genocide you're actually um a nightmare clothed in human form and I hate you and want you to die 👍. The labor party can fuck themselves with a rusty chainsaw on this one, they're wrong and history will remember them as murderers.

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Happy cake day!

I'm curious, do you vote below the line because you vote in a way that has to be BTL, or just because you're used to it from the old GVT days? Personally I've not done it since 2016, because for the most part I trust each party's internal ordering of their candidates.

But damn, if I were a Western Australian, and Payman were still in Labor, and she were still preselected in the 2028 election (that's a lot of ifs), I would definitely be voting BTL just to support her. Not sure if I'd vote her 1, then Greens just as a way to provide maximal support for her bravery, or vote Greens first, then her, then the rest of Labor, in a more honest assessment of my political views (disregarding my vote for other smaller parties before and in between Greens & Labor).

[–] naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I don't always agree with the party's ordering. Some people I just fundamentally do not trust. I think there's some concern with weird vote exhaustion (e.g. my 2nd is party 1st, my 1st is party 2nd, my 3rd is party I don't want. My 1st goes to my 2nd, which doesn't win, so my 3rd is counted and party 2nd loses by one vote) but I don't know how likely that really is in practice and I mostly just drop horrible people and political schemers /shrug

TBH I've basically lost faith in the Westminster system. I participate because absolutely fuck disempowering yourself to any degree but I put my energy in smaller scale stuff and trying to build community.

[–] stepchook@mastodon.au 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

@naevaTheRat @Zagorath I think the Westminster system is designed for exactly that purpose. It was invented to separate powers and stop various denominations from flogging each other. Democracy is served when the greater number decide, even when they're wrong.

[–] naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I think you're ascribing too much benign intention to something which was realistically the result of a complex power struggle between monarchs, nobles, intellectual elites, and a new class of merchants/financiers where everyone was trying to use everyone else to fuck everyone else in their favour and riling up the proles as needed.

It's not some planned genius system carefully crafted for utmost morality. It's a way for rich business owners to get a slice of the pie normally reserved for nobles while offering enough compromises/threat of revolt to keep the smaller but culturally and militarily powerful class of old money happy enough.

Your participation as a prole is highly limited, you are basically unable, short of mass violence, to hold anyone accountable for any particular decision; you are not allowed to force certain things to even be discussed or debated. It is not a system made for you to participate in, it is a system where you have some (extremely limited) participation because your class of people were a piece on someone else's board.

Compared to actual democratic institutions which work by consensus and direct representation, or representation at the continued will of a consensus body it is a joke. It does not require your consent, and what little privilege you have does not extent to any practical considerations in your life (housing, work etc) which remain dictatorial.

Dream bigger dude.

[–] stepchook@mastodon.au 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

@naevaTheRat "Actual democratic institutions which work by direct representation"

...such as?

[–] naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

what do you mean? Any number of things... The system you have with your friends to decide who hosts the next movie night, your community astronomy club annual meeting, your Union, idk what are you involved in? What is this question even? Democratic decision making is as old as time and as varied as the seasons.

[–] stepchook@mastodon.au 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

@naevaTheRat democratic decision making doesn't mean you all get what you want. To the extent that government is democratic - to that extent we submit ourselves to the will of the people. Quite often having to abide by decisions we don't agree with. Often our elected representatives are Slaves to compromise and party policy.
I thought you could give an example of a government sized democracy doing better.

[–] naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Don't put words in my mouth, democracy has nothing to do with getting what you want is has to do with participation and voice in the decision making process.

We have almost no representation in government, no choice as to whether or not we are bound by it, we have no democracy at work, deciding economic priorities anything like that.

You've been told you live in a democracy but aside from being told that what evidence is there that you do? Can you even fire the government? Your boss? Do you really have a voice?

here's a Democratic government.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapatista_Army_of_National_Liberation

[–] stepchook@mastodon.au 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

@naevaTheRat violent overthrow is one way of changing government. Conservative forces can also stage a coup. Once the new government has power, what then? Appoint ourself as the head of secret police. Then we are back at the start. Just different people being oppressed. I confess my outlook is far more menshevik and gradual. Apologist really. A gradual conservative coup seems to be under way in Australia.

[–] naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Are you high? They're just an example of Democratic governance that's all.

[–] stepchook@mastodon.au 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

@naevaTheRat Not really familiar with the Zapatista movement. "Can you even fire the government?" Was your question. What is the point of having ideal governance if it can be fired? You are correct in that we vote seldom for a party rather than for policy. I am not sure anarchy is a great alternative

[–] naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I want some of whatever you're on, this is incoherent. The gov system you're defending can be fired by the GG or through a DD resolution. Mechanisms to fire governments are in all non totalitarian systems I'm aware of.

Suppose you vote me in on my platform of not killing you, but surprise! I lied! you can't hold me accountable for 3 (or 6!) years. That is obviously messed the fuck up, if you have no power to recall me I'm not representing you, I'm just someone who convinced you to give me some power for a while.

why do you dream so small? why are you convinced that it's this pathetic little dribble of political power or we murder each other in the streets. Fuck dude, anarchic societies are usually pretty peaceful even in the case of zero external government. Anthropologists have spilled a lot of ink on this.

[–] stepchook@mastodon.au 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

@naevaTheRat Still getting my head around concept of anarchy. To some extent, it seems like the ultimate extension of 'separation of powers' in that decisions are decentralised. Not only to each individual, but each moment.

[–] naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I don't really know what you mean? anarchy can involve centralised decisions but only by consent.

E.g. agreeing to follow to plan of someone for laying out a community garden is anarchic if you are not obligated to do so.

Actual anarchy in the real world often involves lots of committees and community groups both explicit and customary. It's hard to do much without organisation, but the difference is bottom up "we want a garden so we form a committee to plan it" vs top down "We are building a garden here for your community enrichment" "but we want a sports ground here" "silence peasants"

[–] stepchook@mastodon.au 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

@naevaTheRat
Thankyou. Your use of the the word anarchic makes a lot of sense.

[–] naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Anarchy just means without heirarchy. I only brought it up in passing that humans are actually pretty cool and it takes a lot for us to be violent and horrible. Like in societies with no central government people are usually pretty fine so the sort of lockeian "red in tooth and claw state of nature" argument as a defense of this shitty compromise governance apparently holding us back from chaos doesn't actually stand.

Cards on the table I am an anarchist, I think humans are broadly awesome and wonderful apes. I think we do bad stuff when faced with very non ape-compatible choices like whether to deploy militaries but most of those are only enabled by supressing our anarchic tendencies.

When we have to resolve disputes like taking out the garbage, who's round is it at the pub, should we support a school's project etc we're really cool and sensitive. It's why I believe in proper democracy, even stuff like the mondragon corporation do so much better because of democracy.

[–] stepchook@mastodon.au 1 points 4 months ago

@naevaTheRat
I have been reading a little about the society of our primate relatives and whole-heartedly agree that our cooperative nature is innate. Stress can cause us to behave in more primitive ways, using only our lizard brain - we tend to think only of preserving our own vegetative functions. I think some people carry that level of trauma around with them.

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 3 points 4 months ago

It's not quite the same thing, because she chose to become an independent, she didn't get forced out by the Greens saying you must agree with the party line or else.

I genuinely don't know if the Greens would have done the same thing, because it didn't come to that.

[–] Nath@aussie.zone 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

To add some nuance to this most people vote by party in the senate.

I think this is more fair for senators than lower house. Senators represent their whole state, while MLAs represent their local electorate. I can see scenarios where the needs and wishes of your local electorate are not quite aligned with your party on all issues and in those situations, you should do what your electorate would wish of you.

This is a really murky issue for any senator. The YouGov polls show wider support for a Palestinian state than the Government does. But it also shows that more of us are unsure on this topic than those who support/don't support. Which stands to reason, the region is really far away from us and we aren't all that involved, really.

The pessimist in me dismisses much of the government's position on the conflict as aligning with US interests. Which takes us back to Senator Payman. On this particular topic, I believe her firm position probably both is representative of a decent slice of her state as well as being a foil on the generic support of all things US from her party. Good on her.

I'm not really into party politics, so I don't really have a stake in whether she should be ejected from her party for this. But if pressed, I'd say they'd be making a mistake to eject her over this matter. This is not a major party policy, and its position does not have wide-spread community support.

[–] naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

We are actually kinda involved, as a US protectorate (Prove me wrong pollies, prove me wrong! defy your masters. Ask the Kurds how always allying with the US works out) we tend to support their interests in the middle east, also we ship Israel weapons except we claim we don't because apparently if I give you a trigger, a barrel, and a receiver and you have the rest I haven't technically given you a weapon under international law 🙄. I think Australia has helped them repair some of the planes they're using to murder children.

But I do broadly agree with your analysis. I think the issue isn't as simple as "loyalty pledge evil! mean evil labor" but also like what it's being used for here is absolutely horrible and could most charitably be interpreted as a system backfiring and least charitably ghoulish power brokers squashing the soul out of a decent person to back warhawks.

[–] swayevenly@lemm.ee 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

But isn't Fatima arguing that she's abiding by Labor's pledge and the amendment her party put forth was going against that? According to your argument, wouldn't her constituents or donors be happy about that?

[–] naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 4 months ago

Idk, I can't vote for her and I don't vote labor except once all my actual preferences are exhausted so I'm not really paying much attention to this. I don't vote labor because they pull nonsense like this, acting like there's some way "not being divided" over mass murder is worth a damn.

If they're talking about an IR bill or whatever then idk maybe not getting wedged makes sense but children are dying. I don't really know how much more obvious the right side of history can get than "the side which stops children dying".

Australian Politics

Rules

Recommended and Related Communities

Plus other communities for sport and major cities.