Should / can Labor distance itself from unions?

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/alps-union-ties-under-fire-20140202-31vap.html

I don`t think the ALP can distance itself from the unions. The unions are the ALP. The unions own the ALP. Bill Shorten hasn`t got the goolies to really tackle this issue. He`ll give lip service, but he won`t run the hard yards.

Common sense dictates that the ALP is a shot duck politically, if it doesn`t break away from the unions, but it`s between a rock and a hard place.

Watching the ALP, has always been akin to watching someone step in something nasty. Then, rather than seeing them wipe their shoe and move on, we are forced to watch them get down and roll in it.

 

Despite some cheap and hateful rhetoric reading those lines,
I agree that the ALP needs a rethink, a reshuffle of the party and its columns. If the ALP can't renew itself, the next election will be lost again and Australia will suffer even more under an backward orientated Liberal government.
Cherrio

 

Heaven forbid! We might even have to "suffer even more under an backward orientated Liberal government" to the point of a budget surplus.

 

Union's are pain's in the butt most of the time. Yes they do some good workplace representation, but its only a fraction as a byproduct of aggressive power hungry machinations spinning out two faced manipulators who have no real idea about how business and industry operates.
BUT I'm not sure what the ALP would be without them, as that is who they are.

 

The ALP must reform... With that being said, this is simply smoke and mirrors forced upon the ALP to distance themselves from the entire union corruption debate in hope that nothing splashes back. You cannot tell me that after the elections there is nothing wrong with the party but after investigations are set to begin, the party suddenly needs reform.

Unions are not irrelevant in purpose just thought. That is to say, Unions need to also reform to bring their 60's mentality up to the current world not continue to remain in the past. Nobody can tell me that the ALP is a progressive party or a party for the future while they continue to pander to their base which lives with sixties thought pattern. Times have changed and Australia needs to adapt. Unions seem set in remaining in the past.

BUT the party needs MORE reform than simply looking to change their support base away from the known to a perceived better while remaining with the same deceitful ways. This current mob continues to lie to the people, Telling WA voters they support getting rid of the carbon tax then voting down the repeal bills in Canberra. Their vote in the senate did demonstrate the fact people see the deceit.

Better people, better policy are needed for the ALP than current. The unions also need reform but continue to show they don't want to change. If the ALP wants to survive, they need to do far more then distance themselves but to actually cut the ties. I had some hope for the palmer United party but at present I think the inexperience and outspoken leader will detrimentally hold that party back...

 

The ALP and Unions have had such a parasitical symbiotic relationship for so long, that neither would survive without the other now. We desperately need a third and forth alternative to the LUG (Labor/Union/Greens) party, and the Liberal/National party. These bunch of clowns have 'well and truly' had their day, and have been found wanting for decades. Why people keep giving these same idiots to keys to the door is beyond me. Surely there has to be a limit for everyone, when they realise that something is just not working correctly, and haven't these clowns reached that limit?

 

I still have reasonable hopes for Clive Palmer, and feel he finding his feet in a difficult arena, and trying to prove to his constituent that he is not a stooge for any major political party.

 

I too have hopes, but his style is what seems to be bringing him undone. Making statements upon the media speculation and even admitting the party is not been told what the policy is at the same time, while they did go to election saying they supported the policy... I think you know what I mean. He needs to reign himself in and focus on the policy he does know and comment on them. NOT get drawn on speculations of the media as they sensationalise everything. NOW if he the party decides to support the policies he has clearly stated would be opposed, how do you think that will go down???

Still there is time for change Clive is simply not known for change so prognosis is not good at this time... Disappointing

 

I haven`t been impressed with Clive Palmer`s performance to date. Too much politicking and not enough viable alternative. Only a DNA test could prove to me, that Sarah Hanson - Young isn`t Clive and Christine`s love child.

 

Common sense dictates the media are prostitutes; they drug the unwilling victim up on sensationalism and hype - hoping he/she will make a mistake or change their minds, and then capitalise on that mistake or change of heart. I agree, Clive needs to only comment on the policy he knows about, and not commenting on speculation.

 

To a large degree, unions are redundant. They sell their spiel to the gullible, ("without the union, you wouldn`t have a bed to sleep in, you wouldn`t have air to breathe etc. etc.") and the gullible swallow it hook line & sinker. As workers progressively begin to think for themselves, and realise that they`re being fleeced, they will move away from the dogma of their union masters. It`s hard to conjure an image of a more dodgy character than a union lawyer. There is no group more skilled in the "arts" of deception and corruption, but these people infect the ALP like an epidemic, and increasingly, the public are noticing.

 

I do like the way Clive Palmer stands up to pushy journalists. Journalists should report the news, not "make" the news.

 

We saw first hand the deceptive "art" of a lying Union lawyer within the ALP in the image of Gillard. I think the more the Unions discredit themselves nationally with corruption, lies and deception within their own ranks, will wake some people up that these parasites are just taking their money and achieving nothing - except good times at prostitute venues, and private home renovations.

 

The unions falsely claim to get better wages for their contributors. The reality is, when everyone in the country gets a wage rise, no one is any better off, except for union lawyers & officials, who live off their members. As for Gillard`s "AWU Workplace Reform Association" issue, Julie Bishop hit the nail on the head when she said words to the effect of, " It would take a very naïve lawyer to not know that the AWU Workplace Reform Association was planned as a vehicle for corruption, theft". As a group, union lawyers are the elite body, in the field of corruption in this country. No one does it better.

 

Who else are the keys going to be given to? The sex party, gun party, one nation........ Maybe we need defectors from both sides led by possibly Malcolm Turnbull to start a new party with credible members.....now that could actually work!

 

yeap,
Malcolm would have my vote as well, as long as he is able to control the rednecks in his own ranks....

Scott Ludlam (Greens) is another politician, who has big potential.

Don't forget Penny Wong, I could see her as another Labor PM one day.....

 

Turnbull is a fairly straight shooter, but I wouldn't trust Wong as far as I could sling her. She abandoned Rudd's sinking boat, and climbed aboard Gillard's boat to save her own political skin, even though it was obvious she favoured Rudd's policies over Gillard's - now that's a rat you certainly don't trust. She is gay herself, and made a public statement, stating it was better for the public if politicians controlled to vote over gay marriage, instead of giving the people their democratic right to a referendum on the issue - now that's a rat you certainly don't trust to do the right thing by you.

 

Well,
I don't have a problem with gay people, and why should we hold a referendum over an issue, which is completely up to the individual?
They can marry 5 millions time if they chose to do so.
Don't stay in the past mate......
regards

 

"...why should we have a referendum over an issue, which is completely up to the individual"? Are you, and Wong suggesting, that 300 Canberra politicians have the right to represent the opinions of 23 million Australians, which will socially effect 23 million Australians? Is that not what the referendum is all about, giving all the Australian people their democratic right to voice their opinions on issues that will effect their society? Or has that democratic right been replaced in favour of what 300 Canberra politicians want and decided? Is it not time the majority started ruling the minority, instead of the minority ruling the majority?

 

I think he meant that Wong was gay and she wouldn't support the same sex marriage stuff = untrustworthy. Not that he himself had a problem with gay.

 

I remember Leigh Sales interviewing Wong about gay marriage. Wong basically said, the decision should be left to the politicians vote, as this issue was to important to be left to a referendum. She verbally slapped me in the face by making an assumption that her opinion being a politician was more valuable and important than mine being a common citizen. As soon as she uttered that comment, the hairs on my neck stood up as someone I could never trust to do the right thing by me. My brother is gay, and I have no problem with gay or transgendered people, only people like Wong who think their opinions are better than everyone else's just because she is a scum-bag politician. It really just demonstrates again how they think and believe they are above everyone else, and they believe we don't deserve our democracy in determining our own destiny

 

Yeah but some things should be a given! We wouldn't need a referendum to end child slavery, women's rights etc. we live in an enlightened society these days and seems incredibly strange to take such an issue to a referendum! Some politicians need to get over themselves and get the issue off the floor of parliament so that other issues can be focused on that aren't so basic!

 

You got me wrong there, we don't need a referendum as a gay person can marry or do what he or she likes, without anyone judging them. My opinion anyway....

 

yeap,
who knows.
I didn't like Gillard to play the conservative fiddle in that script, but she received her bill later on anyway.
She was however good with the Carbon and Mining Tax part, she had my full support in that.
Regards

 

Gay people can get married, but its not legally recognised, and that's what they are fighting for - the same right as everyone else. If politicians like Wong refuse to do the right thing and legalise gay marriage, then the people should be demanding a referendum on legalising gay marriage, so they can make the choice. Why should 300 scabby Canberra politicians make a social decision for 23 million Australians.