Monday, February 13, 2006

2 out of 3 women against choice are LABOR

What the?

Perusing Bartlett's highly useful breakdown of the Senate vote on RU486, noting the 'comrades' who voted against, and I see that 2 of the 3 women who voted against moving RU486 from Abbott to the doctors are Labor.

Labor women are more right wing than Liberals?

On women's choice?

To paraphrase the Herd, this party needs a fucking shake up....

Labor were 21 for, with the following 7 against:
Mark Bishop - WA
Stephen Conroy - Vic
Michael Forshaw - NSW
John Hogg - Qld
Steve Hutchins - NSW
Helen Polley - Tas
Ursula Stephens - NSW

I continue to grudgingly support conscience votes on issues like this, as well as the continued place within Labor of those who are fervently religious but otherwise tolerant and demonstrably left wing.

Provided they are, of course.


flatcatinahat said...

More than a fuckin shake up, labour needs to split between the factional lines of left and right.

The labour conscience votes for Abbott maintaining his power to impose his Catholic views on a woman's right to choose is, of course, further evidence as to why the labour party needs this split.

Without a doubt labour has been suffering from an identity crisis for many, many years. Until the left and right form their own respective parties, labour is unlikely to again become the government of the day.

Indeed, with the current power brokers at the helm, it cannot distinguish itself from liberal: Similar to the I can't believe its not butter advert, the mantra of I can't believe its not liberal, rings true for labour.

But, if the split is to take place, the 64 thousand dollar question is: Who keeps the party name of labour????

Mike Jericho said...

Go ahead and split, guys. Then enjoy the rest of eternity in the electoral wilderness with the democrats.

The only times that the ALP has won - and continued to win - in the last few decades is when the right of the party is ascendant.

Read more polls, guys. Nobody votes for the far left.

leftvegdrunk said...

Mike, have you been writing letters to Danna again?

Mike Jericho said...

Not since the restraining order went into effect.

Armagnac Esq said...


Jericho's right about winning, and so what would happen is that the two parties would coalition.

But in a way this is how the factions should, and to some extent do, operate. Do they need to split into separate parties, or would a rejig that allowed for a little more open dissent in the party be the trick?

Thing is, even the right is quite split on these issues I think you'll find.

Anonymous said...

Why does that surprise?

There are liberals in the Liberal parties and some Laborites are from very conservative backgrounds. For example, the SDA.

Armagnac Esq said...

yeerse...well... the SDA... hmmm....

Nilk said...

Why is voting against ru486 a vote against choice? I've never had that adequately explained. We've already got the choice to abort or not.

Armagnac Esq said...

Well if you want to split hairs, it's a vote against extending choice, or including another option.

From a 'moral' standpoint such opposition only seems to be based on numbers- i.e. ease of access means more use. However you'd think there'd be a more persuasive argument that says it is better to happen right at the outset when the embyo is least formed.