Monday, September 09, 2013

A nice description of the dilemma

There wasn't a lot to distinguish Rudd and Gillard. But this Canberra Times story neatly covers one part of it.

It said in part

The great project, first begun by Gough Whitlam and later rebuilt by Bob Hawke, is threatened as never before. In the long, barren decades of defeat after Labor lost office in 1948, Whitlam's critical insight was the party needed to reach out.
It could no longer simply rely on the workers' votes. It needed a broader base: cultural workers, environmentalists, and the middle class.
On Saturday, that alliance fell apart. Gillard had defined the fault line by identifying herself with the workers, rather than the progressive elements of the party. That was a desperate attempt to bolster her own internal support. But Kevin Rudd has also proved unable to reach out. Voters decided that he - and Labor - have been unable to present a plausible narrative for Australia's future.

This is a clear distinction. For Gillard the ALP is a labor party, for Rudd the ALP is a progressive party.

But those constituencies don't perfectly overlap.  The classic problem area is the battle between development and conservation - a Labor party wants jobs for loggers, a progressive party wants to save the environment.

The distinction spills over into the conceptions for the organisation of the party.

The distinction between Shorten and Albanese is a bit the same, though the evidence suggests each has a more nuanced view.  

Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est

No comments: