What’s the problem?

This morning, the ALP announced a review of it’s NSW branch.

NSW Labor opposition leader Jodi McKay said:

There has been some shocking and appalling evidence that has arisen from the ICAC hearing.

Federal Labor opposition leader Anthony Albanese said:

there is something fundamentally wrong when people running a political party office think it’s normal to behave this way.

Really?  What’s changed?

But this is the special quote from Mr Albanese:

The culture whereby the general secretary makes a directive and people fall into line needs to change,

A culture of totalitarian “leadership” (within the ALP) needs to change?  Since when?  Is it not the end game of their policies that there is a dear leader directing the nation?

One must wonder whether the problem is the corruption (alleged) or that they got caught?  The review will clearly need to find structural means to better mask such activity in the future.  Watch for the lobbying to commence to change the laws to make such donations legal.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to What’s the problem?

  1. Herodotus

    Noted NSW Labor figure Keneally is saying that it’s riskier to leave ISI women and sprogs in the ME than to bring them home. Her talent for saying shit is up there with Plibeserk and … well, most of them.

  2. Dr Fred Lenin

    Fancy ! Such an altruistic group of people being taited by the actions if a few corrupt people ?
    This of course has never happened before ,like paedophilia , its an aberration committed by a small , really tinygroup who have infiltrated this fine group of caring people . Steps must be taken to prevent this behaviour ever being made public again . We must emulate that fine group of people the Mafia With their tradition of silence about their affairs . Our media must play this down ,the voters dont need to know ,they are onlt there to help our careers in politics ,not to be familiar with our actions . Bloody ICAC sjuld be wound up destroying political career s lime it does.

  3. Bruce of Newcastle

    NSW ALP has been like this since Wran’s our man.
    Electricity privatization was fun though.
    Industrial wing vs green wing.
    Much popcorn eaten.

  4. duncanm

    I can’t be bothered counting ’em, but this is pretty damning for the ALP.

  5. Robbo

    Corruption in the Labor Party is endemic and has been so for many decades. Graham Richardson, a product of the NSW branch of the Labor Party put it to us in simple terms, whatever it takes, and if that whatever involves the offering or taking of bribes, or far worse, then that’s the way it will go without a backward glance. What is even worse is that those involved are so proud of their corrupt activities that they boast about it. This latest posturing by Albanese and Jodi McKay is just the waffling we can expect after the corruption has been exposed. Don’t try and tell me that those two have not been well aware of what has been going on in their Party for many years. In Victoria the Labor Party has long combined corruption with gross incompetence and in Queensland it is exactly the same. How anyone with any sense of decency can vote Labor is beyond me.

  6. stackja

    ALP has never explained WW2 corruption. MSM have never asked.

  7. billie

    did they ever sack that thug from the CFMMEU?

    very quiet in that corner isn’t it

  8. EJ.

    On another note…we have to get out of this place!

  9. Colonel Crispin Berka

    How do you maintain the benefits of corruption?

    No, really. Corruption must have some benefits or people wouldn’t take the risks of doing it. The only reason people stoop to the black market is because the legitimate market has failed to provide. On the recipient side are politicians’ regular communications budgets and election costs which benefit from corrupt donations, maybe a few junkets and post-political Directorships. Having larger tax-payer funded election costs grants issued per candidate regardless of their vote share would help to eliminate the attraction of corruption for campaign funding. Having less sitting days in parliament would allow people to keep working other jobs while being an MP, leading to less career politicians and so less need for politicians to secure a cushy landing when their parliamentary term is over. Politicians would have the benefit of corruption without the corruption.

    On the donor side there is probably even more reforms that can be made. Presently the vested interests can get more influence over everyday bureaucracy decisions and election-time policies than the votes of their employees and shareholders are worth. Aside from this process being illegal, we must ask what is actually wrong about the outcomes it creates. Is it unfair to buy special treatment, or is it only unfair that one organisation got the chance to buy special treatment and nobody else did?

    One way to reduce corruption is to move some of these services out of government and into the open market, so anyone who wants special treatment can get it if they can afford it. Take environmental concerns as an example. Taken to its logical conclusion, this approach would ultimately require the privatisation of the environment, with shares of it distributed initially equally to a swathe of eligible citizens, and tradeable for money, and ownership and sale prices visible on a public register. The tactic of vested interests buying landholders’ rights on the cheap is lessened by landholders asking competing interests if they want to buy it for more money. If the Wilderness Society can outbid Adani, I’d be surprised, but it would be a fair trade.

    If that still doesn’t sound fair on an equal rights basis, an alternative is eliminating rules and legalising activities that the vested interests are trying to do, and finding other ways of reducing negative externalities of those activities so those side-effects are avoided in all activities not just those the special interests are pursuing. It is much more difficult to procure special treatment different from every other citizen than it is to get treatment different from other mining companies. Mining companies are allowed to cause some pollution or habitat destruction as long as the economic benefit is large enough and the destruction is temporary. The opportunity to make the same tradeoff should be extended to all citizens, not just big mining companies. When anyone can buy the right to endanger the lesser-spotted owl it is hard to make a claim of corruption when a company does the same thing because the payoff makes the trade worthwhile.

    Corruption is ultimately about special and unique processes being employed, not about whether the outcomes are liked. Throwing open to market forces the right to endanger the lesser-spotted owl may still result in the extinction of that owl through a consensus of citizens deciding they valued mining jobs and tax revenues more than they valued the owl, but nobody could say it was through corruption. The task of making everyone else conform to your set of values and preferences is a very different affair, namely totalitarianism.

  10. Squirrel

    The wide-eyed response from Albanese is priceless – a bit like Dobby being surprised to “discover” that things are not quite what they seem at Hogwarts.

  11. min

    If Michael Smith is successful there will be a few more Labor names on the list

Comments are closed.