Sunday, 25 August 2013

For Communities, For Workers, For Families

The website of the Democratic Labour Party of Australia is having problems (I have been in touch), but note the recent change in the name of that party. From that change comes the slogan, "Putting You Back Into Labour". See what they did there?

The Australian Labor Party, which is older than the British Labour Party, is a very rare, and now possibly unique, exception to the Australian preference for British over American spellings. Just as the spelling of "neighbours" in Australia is "neighbours", as in Neighbours, so the ordinary spelling of "labour" in Australia is "labour". As the DLP now observes.

Winning back that Senate seat in Victoria last time was a magnificent achievement, and John Madigan has not let the grass grow under him.

Katter's Australian Party is pretty good, and it is an interesting phenomenon. Its preference deal with Labor in Queensland is remarkable, not least for bringing rural Queensland, and the concerns articulated by the KAP, into play both in general and, specifically, at the very highest levels of the ALP.

But it has to be the DLP. The Labor Senator Jacinta Collins of Victoria also richly deserves to be re-elected this year, and it is perfectly possible to vote for her as well as for both of Senator Madigan's partisans. Just as it is to vote for all three KAP and both DLP candidates in Queensland. Imagine that.

If Tony Abbott does win, and if Bill Shorten does take over from Kevin Rudd, then both main Party Leaders would have been educated by the Jesuits. And between them, they would constitute the most spectacular manifestation of the need for the Democratic Labour Party.


  1. Australia's only hope of a conservative party was the "One Nation" party.

    Pro-nationalisation, economically protectionist, pro-Christian, anti-war, anti-multiculturalism and anti-immigration, I think even you would have liked it.

    The Tories (through Lynton Crosby)are trying to borrow the tactics Australia's aptly-named Liberal party used to kill it off, in their war against UKIP.

  2. The DLP have been doing this since 1955, and are in a tradition which goes back further than that. Just ask them about Pauline Hanson.

  3. One Nation went far further than the DLP ever has.

    Even Wikipedia's entry on them notes

    ""The One Nation party is a Right-wing and nationalist party which....also denounced economic rationalism and globalisation, reflecting working-class dissatisfaction with the neo-liberal economic policies embraced by the major parties. ""

    ""Adopting strong protectionist policies, One Nation advocated the restoration of import tariffs, a revival of Australia's manufacturing industry, and an increase in support for small business and the rural sector""

    You ought to support them.

  4. Your choice of source says it all, I am afraid.

    Once GKC has been raised to the Altars, then it will be time to move on to Bob Santamaria. Pauline Hanson, however, was and is a clown, and not in the holy fool sense

    Oh, and the DLP still exists, complete with parliamentary representation. Despite an almost complete media blackout of many years' standing until John Madigan got in last time. One Nation enjoyed saturation coverage, but where is it now? A lesson, indeed.

  5. Her party's policies were enormously popular, though-as proven by their 1990's success.

    They were, as I said earlier, killed off by a Liberal Party PR campaign, which successfully painted John Howard as a conservative. The most brilliant PR fraud in history.

    That's why Cameron hired Lynton Crosby to help against UKIP.

  6. Hardly seems necessary now.

    Hanson believed in a liberal Australia which she saw as under threat, leading her to advocate a robust response.

    She was a prototype neocon, and Howard was entirely honest in professing his agreement with her.

    Thereby neutralising her as an electoral force, but that's politics.

    There is now talk of Howard as Governor-General. Urggghhh!

  7. She didn't believe in any such thing- she proposed publicly-owned utilities and protectionist import tariffs as well as an end to Australia's version of state-sponsored multicultural mini-statelets- it's Aboriginal programmes.

    She was protectionist, pro-nationalisation anti Islamicisation, anti- immigrstion and anti war-hardly a neocon!

  8. Then she should have joined the DLP. There were very good reasons why she didn't.

  9. Her party was far more successful than them when she launched it.

    They should have joined her.

  10. Not as things turned out. And not at all, in fact.

    Take note, if there were ever to be some kind of Tory schism (unlikely, but not impossible), then those who followed it would not join you. They would expect you to join them, or face oblivion if you tried to maintain a separate existence.

  11. Oh, a Tory collapse is the necessary but not sufficient condition for the formation of a real conservative party in Britain.

    We already have one British party-and only one-that has consistently opposed the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars and consistently supported grammar schools and consistently supported our withdrawal from the European Union and from the ECHR.

    But their true role is not to replace the Tories, but to destroy the Tories and open a gap in the market for something far better.

    It's not Tory voters that a new political party would really aim to capture (they are a dwindling tribe) but the millions of voters long since lost to the Tories and to Labour.

    The enormous "None of the Above" party (now over 40% of the electorate) is waiting for a proper conservative formation to represent them.