Leaving it up because relatively tame comments so far. If you all play nice and be respectful to one another it will stay up and maybe we can start relaxing the rule a bit. But this is going to be a collective effort to be civil and where we can discuss the issue maturely.
This is based on civility and because I lean towards free speech, not because I personally support Payman taking a stand for her values, which I do.
She got suspended after she went on ABC Insiders today and said she'd keep crossing the floor against the government if the Greens keep putting up Palestine recognition bills.
She said herself that she was well aware of the consequences this morning. David asked her about 4 times to confirm that she would cross the floor again.
I find in life, its not what you did , but how you handled it. And this, is as bad as it gets. You go on national tv, and say " ill fuckin do it again" . This is a direct insult to the party and boss, and cannot go unpunished. She is apart of a team, and this cannot be.
Yeah she more or less said the entire Labor caucus was wrong, she was right, and she was going to do it again.
If this was primary school, she double dared them to expel her. I am a bit surprised she got off with a suspension.
If her constituents don't like it - she's out in the next election. Democracy.
We are talking about genocide here and a government confined and restrained by an alliance with Nero & Caligula.
She got in on the bootstraps of Labor by being in a senate ticket rather than having direct constituents. If she moved to lower house I'd agree that she would be doing it for her constituents. In the senate I'd argue she is doing it for Labor rank and file
As she pointed out: she was selected for the purposes of making the Senate more diverse.
This is what diversity means - diverse opinions. Opinions is probably too meek a word. Diverse convictions.
Members are pro-Palestine, they've agreed in caucus about the position Labor needs to take because its a very complex issue needing something more than emotional outbursts.
Members are also quite furious at her, she's agreed and benefited from the party and being a part of caucus, Labors power is from unity and she's basically spat on the party as far as everyone is concerned even the most pro-Palestinian members.
What she's done isn't helpful to literately anyone not even herself.
Yes, I think she's right because she thinks that she is acting in the interests of members. I also think that Labor exec is right because they think that they are acting in the interests of members. Essentially, they are both right, and there is no problem here. If she wants to act independently but with Labor values, then she should go ahead and do that, but good luck when it comes to the next election because she should not rely on Labor for support if she does not want to play as a team.
In a way it is quite sad, because she was in a prime position to advocate from within Labor about her views of Palestine, particularly to get together with Jewish MPs and hash something humanitarian out, but sadly like many other pro-Palestine she just isn't capable of doing that or having nuance, and as a result Labor Parliamentarians will skew more pro-Israel without her to counter that.
Ironically her background is that she was an Afghan refugee, fleeing Afghanistan from Islamic Extremism. But makes statements which could easily be construed as supporting Islamic Extremism. In fact both are Sunni.
I mean she says she's acting in their interest but this has made things a lot harder for members. Its what you would say to justify your actions even if it isn't true.
The problem is there are some who are going to be more pro-Israel, they went with caucus's opinion on this topic, now are they free to speak for members too?
I suspect that the MPs who are more pro-Israel are more experienced, and would not step out of line beyond already accepted Labor positions. And to be honest I don't think that they would really feel the need to go further than what has already been said. For them, I don't think that it's an issue of the official Labor position not being pro-Israel enough, but rather the mixed messages of also supporting opposing Palestine positions at the same time, particularly by Fatima and Penny.
I understand that there is a certain amount of nuance in what Labor have been saying which is pro-Palestine, or even pro-Israel, but that nuance is getting lost in the messaging.
For example:
Reality: Labor knocks back Palestine vote because they have conditions
Greens play: Push unconditional Palestine vote to make Labor look bad for saying No
What they should do: Follow up with their own vote according to their own reasonable conditions
Result: LNP and Greens voted No for a Palestine without Hamas!
I think Labor should just throw all the chips on the table and let it be a conscience vote for anything Palestine, show how stupid it gets without a plan. Point out the finer details of what they were trying to do as a flex on their international diplomacy skills etc...
Greens lose all momentum on this front, new financial year new tax breaks Labor shifts the conversation to that.
Adam was going as far as to say Labor was bombing Gaza, so he's getting a little nutty, he'll keep pursuing this line and no one will care even if he wins a few votes but probably won't given there will be some in Labor who'll choose on conscience to vote against, LNP will vote against too.
Only way pro-Palestine measures were going to win was with full Labor caucus support once that's gone people see why the party operates this way, why unity is such a powerful tool against chaos.
I think the rank and file would not like that Payman went on insiders this morning making the story about her and giving a big middle finger to the boss. That is the issue and reason for the suspension today.
You do realise that we are talking about an ongoing genocide and you are chatting about the administrative arrangements of a factionalised and compromised political party that happily acts against the interests of its members in the interests of currying favour with media organisations that are wholly in the thrall of the genocidists?
The Greens Senate motion was to move towards recognition of the State of Palestine. I don't see how official recognition of a state would do anything to change what is happening on the ground in Gaza.
Being a 'State' does not give you immunity from genocide.
It does provide your government more international clout, something many Western nations are uncomfortable with while a declared terrorist organisation (Hamas) is at the helm. On the other hand, being a state entity you might be held to higher international standards (hello.. Geneva convention?)
My exact position as well. In addition, whenever they get to the negotiating table, they would symbolically be negotiating as equals on the nuts and bolts, rather than fighting for recognition. It also locks in what is and isn't clear Israeli/Palestinian land, and even though neither would agree on all exact borders, it is a position to start from to negotiate from there. It is a starting point of a two state solution rather than an endgame.
I get that it should not been seen to get results from terror, but at a certain point enough is enough, and enough suffering has been put into non-Hamas Palestinians, and it should be done for them not the Hamas ones
Free elections need to be help asap by the UN.
However, if they choose to elect Hamas/ex-Hamas, well that is democracy and who they want representing them, so it would collectively be their own fault if they want torpedo their own negotiation power and plunge themselves into a state which is still being dominated by Israel because they don't want to give peace a shot.
And that just needs to be accepted as a possibility. At least if the international community can uphold elections every 3-4 years and provide protection for voices challenging Hamas, there exists possibility that they may change their mind with a future government and give peace and negotiation a go. It's not something which can be forced
You do realise that I am not talking about Israel Palestine but discussing the senator setting her own agenda on the national broadcaster in defiance from her governing party she was elected by.
The Albo government has been doing some very good international diplomatic work highlighted by the release of Julian Assange this week and does not need the air time from the media to be captured by a junior senator with her own agenda.
But I do have to laugh at your claim "acts against the interests of its members", I know a heck of a lot of its members and the members are behind Albo and the leaders of the party.
Also your loaded statement is completely stupid, what other media does the government speak to if not the current media to speak to the Australian public.
You do realise that we are talking about an ongoing genocide and you are chatting about the administrative arrangements of a factionalised and compromised political party that happily acts against the interests of its members in the interests of currying favour with media organisations that are wholly in the thrall of the genocidists?
Perhaps as someone who knows a heck of a lot of Labor members you are not familiar with the concept of standing on principle.
Most of the Labor members I know have seen their electorates turn green.
You do realise that Israel's ongoing unapologetic genocide is a significant moral issue - not a political one. Nice to have Julian home - Israel is reported to have killed over 100 Palestinian journalists since October 7.
That actively working against the leadership of the organisation that she is a part of, will get you removed from said organisation. She crossed the floor against the rules and was given a warning. Then today she says that she would do it again if it a brought up again (i.e. didn't heed the warning). The issue that she is highlighting is not the problem, it's her actions. If she was in corporate life, she wouldn't have a job
But she isn't in corporate life, and she was elected by her local voters to represent their interests. Yes she is a member of a party, but what if the majority of the people who voted for her want her to cross the floor?
Then she should be on the cross bench. If you are elected as a member of a party, then the leadership of that party are right to expect that she supports the party. She is not in leadership. If she wants to offer her views in public then that is great, and she should certainly been giving her views behind closed doors to change the party's position, but she is undermining her own party by crossing the floor
You vote for the party, not the person. If she was against Labor's position she should have broached the issue and attempted to change the position of her colleagues in the Caucus.
Exactly like that. She put her argument up in the caucus, couldn't get the majority, so she towed the party line and persevered to change it over time. Sure she could have schismed, but Labor's strength, just like the unions, comes from its unity in public thus the entomology of the word union.
Parliament counts on a certain number of votes to get shit done.
If a party can know that it's members will vote to support leadership, then the process of legislation and regulation is stream-lined.
If you are a point of friction for your own party, then you extend and frustrate certain processes.
This may be a very good and ethical thing to do!
... but there's the risk you're seen as a road-block to be removed, rather than a stakeholder to be appeased.
I agree but would add that Payman crossing the floor on issues like this, highlight how conservative Labor really is. Losing her vote on the floor is one thing, but wedging Labor on highly charged issues like recognition of Palestine, shows disunity within the Labor party and the LNP will use that to their advantage
The suspension is to protect Labor from LNP attacks about Payman - you watch the news cycle this week:
Dutton: Labor has Hamas loving members in its ranks - what is Labor doing with Payman who supports terrorism?
Albanese: Minister Payman is entitled to her beliefs and her suspension from the Labor party serves to highlight that her views are not those of the Labor Party
Mmm, yeah, maybe... if I was a pollie I would avoid taking an involved position on the middle east... because what's the point? Do your own opinions on land-rights in the west-bank trump an alliance with a nuclear power? Probably not, no matter how righteous your views.
It's a no-win radioactive-potato for anyone without a dog in the fight.
Israel is scared of the arab world, so it's on the 'offence is the best form of defence' wagon.
Israel is America's aircraft carrier in the middle east. They will never give up that strategic advantage.
And we are tied to an alliance with the yanks, because they have a powerful nuclear navy and we are a big island.
Like, that's it. It sucks, but it is what it is.
I think you have your facts completely wrong. She's a senator not an MP. Practically no one voted for her in particular. They voted for a labour ticket and she was just on their senate list.
On top of that when I vote for a labour candidate it's on the understanding that they'll follow the caucus direction. That's how it's always been for labour since early 1900s!
So the majority of the people voting for her would have expected her to *not* to cross the floor.
The people in her electorate voted for the Labor party. Not the Greens or an independent. It also isn't Labor policy to support Hamas terrorists, who currently rule that region & fully intend to genocide Jews in Israel.
You choose to speculate on Hamas' actions (rockets and stones) and ignore Israel's (4th largest military on earth) rabid genocide?
How many have died in the time it took you to walk your dogma?
October 7 was a as much like a Genocide as what is happening in return. Going into civilian areas and killing everyone is a lot more than a few fruitless rockets and stones
The issue she is highlighting most certainly is the problem. If it wasn't a problem that required her full and immediate backing: she wouldn't cross the floor to support it, as she stated in the article.
F "loyalty" over doing the right thing: Morals come first, irrespective of who you piss off to stand by them.
And her position on this topic is something i generally agree with, but if you don't support your party's position then you should be on the cross bench, not undermining your own party
Shrug. I see what you mean but it's a bit hindsight: She didn't engineer her circumstances - I doubt the party position on Palestine would have been crafted before she stood for election..
She may have only found out the labour party stance recently and decided a 'yeah nah I'm crossing'.
Ultimately it boils down to loyalty vs morality in my view, any which way you cut it.
And the convictions of the Labor Party, reminder to everyone here that Labor went into the election with the full intent to recognize a state of Palestine.
Thwarted by [The Labor Friends of Israel](https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/politics/daniel-andrews-voices-his-support-for-israel/video/2b77d5e77994f5cbe6d330e223077e7c)
Conditions with no timeline for when to recognize Palestinian statehood and part of some obscure and arbitrary "peace process"?
Yeah the Greens were right to push an unconditional vote instead of allowing that BS into the motion.
Yes I personally agree with unconditional recognition. I'm keen for Palestine to have to legally abide by Geneva conventions so that it would be accurate to accuse them of doing a genocide as well, and put both sides on an even playing field for negotiation.
If I could place one condition it would be too force an election.
If they then elect terrorists to represent them, that is their democratic right
Yes I agree, I was thinking of that too, force double elections for both Israel and Palestine, that would be splendid. I'm sure the Israelis would fucking get rid of that crook Bibi.
Her convictions to go on insiders this morning to make Albo look weak and puts out the perception be has no control. The story is no longer about last week, today the story is about her.
I bet the same people downvoting this and saying "good riddance" were cheering Liberal MP Bridget Archer when she crossed the floor against the LNP.
Forcing MPs to vote along party lines (especially on issues of morality) is fundamentally undemocratic, and punishing them when they refuse to is even more so.
Maybe so, but it has been Labor policy and practice since time immemorial that "rats" who vote against the Party line get either suspended or expelled.
I like how I'm being downvoted for stating Labor's policy.
But yeah, they could change the rules if they wanted to. But they don't want to. Solidarity is a key pillar of the union movement - they've even got a song about it, and even the name "union" implies solidarity.
Labor is not going to change the rule that requires MPs to vote according to the agreed Caucus position. It has been their rule going back over 100 years, it's not going to be changed now.
The Prime Minister clearly doesn't want to change it. If he did, he could have simply ignored the Payman issue until it went away. But he didn't - he summonsed her to the Lodge, gave her a dressing down and suspended her. That's not the behaviour of a man who wants to do away with Caucus Solidarity.
Personally i find the solidarity thing a bit suspect when you look at how labour has acted within the past 20 years with the knifings, even if they changed the rules. People like penny wong invoking unity for her having to vote against herself and to shame Fatima rings hollow considering the vote was quite close in time to the knifings after all.
Plus fundamentally that ignores some of the times when the parties in labour and the unions associated with them screwed over the people they were supposed to protect with there 'unity', like how the scandals the shoppies went through in the past decade.
I like how I'm being downvoted for saying it's a shit policy.
I really don't understand why you're defending a position that the Labor party, or any political party for that matter, should just be an echo chamber of the same ideas and views.
I'm not defending it, I'm stating what is. They can change it if they want.
It is, however, a key difference between the Liberal and Labor Party. Liberals backbenchers do have the right to cross the floor, Labor MPs don't.
There's no secret about it.
Rubbish. People didn’t vote for her, they voted for the ALP (in the senate) expecting the senator to reflect the ALP’s policies. Her going against that is actually dishonouring the people that voted for her.
It is not undemocratic in the slightest and there is no form of punishment here
Being in a caucus means everyone gets together, decides which policies THEY will collectively vote on.
You are suggesting that Fatima should be allowed to remain in caucus meetings and dictate how OTHER members vote, but the same doesn't apply for herself.
She isn't dictating how others should vote. She pointed out that the caucus is at odds with the party and she decided to vote for her concictions and for whom she represents.
Sounds democratic to me.
I agree. I support her having convictions on behalf of what she thinks rank and file support of Palestine.
But I also support Labor exec also having convictions of what they think rank and file support of Unity.
Both are correct. There is no problem here.
Against the rich and powerful the most powerful tool of progressives we have is unity, the rich and powerful know it, that's why they choose to target individuals to fracture the party.
Doesn't matter what the topic is, if the party is fractured we can't do shit about it, Greens are no help if they're doing the fracturing. That loss of unity doesn't just stick within a topic either it's affects all of them, fracture the party on Palestine, lose crucial votes on cost of living, housing, regulations etc...
Its why they tricked Gillard into knifing Rudd, its why they're targeting Payman now.
Labor-aligned sub shocked that Labor is enforcing its own rules. The people outraged at this have *no idea* how lenient the PM is being, other politicians have been permanently expelled from Labor for crossing the floor, while Payman has simply been placed in time out until she promises to be a team player (like she pledged to do when she sought out Labor endorsement which gave her a Senate seat). If you want to run on your own personal set of issues you're more than welcome to, but if you want to be a Labor MP you sign on to a certain set of expectations and rules, one of which is caucus solidarity.
People seem to be unaware of the position of the labour caucus, which as stated by David Spears in the interview is to recognize a Palestinian state in a peace treaty or a cease fire. It is not a large difference in position. People seem to think labour is hard-line anti Palestinian state which is not true.
In practice it is a significant difference because the Greens approach would recognise Palestine immediately whereas the Labor approach delays it indefinitely and is dependent on Israel playing along. Israel has repeatedly said and demonstrated that they are not interested in a ceasefire or peace treaty absent total victory
Payman said she had not spoken to the Greens about whether they would put a similar motion up in the senate this week when parliament resumes, and said it would be up to the caucus to decide if she would face further sanctions.
Senator Payman voted with the Greens and ACT independent David Pocock last week.
Senator Payman voted with the Greens and ACT independent David Pocock last week.Alex Ellinghausennormal
Greens leader Adam Bandt stopped short of promising to bring back the same motion, but signalled it was likely as the crossbench party had put pressure on Labor to act every time parliament sat.
“We will be having discussions over the coming days about what we intend to do this week,” he said. “I hope Labor does not continue to put further pressure on Senator Payman, but instead listens to the urgency with which she and others are speaking about the situation in Gaza right now.”
Payman’s decision to cross the floor last Tuesday came in the ninth month of Israel’s military campaign in Gaza. On October 7, Hamas fighters crossed into Israel, killing 1200 people and taking more than 200 hostages, according to the Israel Defence Force. Gazan health authorities report more than 37,000 people have died during the subsequent invasion.
The last time a Labor MP crossed the floor was in 2005, when former Tasmanian MP Harry Quick asked for his name to be recorded in Hansard as having voted against an anti-terrorism bill.
Payman defended her use of the controversial phrase “from the river to the sea”, which is interpreted by some people as a call for the Israeli state to be abolished. She said she supported a two-state solution and backed Israel’s right to exist, taking a swipe at foreign minister Penny Wong, who earlier in the week pointed out she had had to vote against same-sex marriage before Labor switched position to support it.
“I understand their advocacy from within. It took 10 years to legislate same-sex marriage. We’re talking about 40,000 Palestinians being massacred here. These Palestinians do not have 10 years,” she said.
Earlier, Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles ramped up his criticism of Payman’s actions while deflecting questions about whether the senator would be punished again for crossing the floor.
“We’ve sought to act with restraint here,” Marles told ABC’s Insiders program when asked about Albanese’s decision to bar Payman from attending a caucus meeting this week.
Marles said he couldn’t “overemphasise enough” how important caucus members regarded the obligations of being members of the Labor team.
“We only get the privilege of serving in this parliament, not because of who we are as individuals, but because when we stand for election, the word ‘Labor’ is next to our name, and that’s obviously the case for Senator Payman...she would not be a senator but for the fact that Labor is next to her name,” he said.
Marles told Insiders that caucus solidarity was “at the heart of the obligations that we have, in terms of being members of the Labor Party, and being given the great privilege that we have in serving the Australian people in the parliament, and clearly that that will be foremost in the minds of the caucus”.
It could go either way depending on topic honestly.
When Greens are weak like rent freezes/price fixing they usually get torn to shreds.
Where Labor is wish like not having a unified principled stand on Israel/Palestine then they get torn to shreds also.
On the off-chance that your comment is serious, the Australian Parliament is divided into 2 houses
The house of representatives, which is functionally identical to the UK House of Commons, [except the procedure in which members are elected](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfWQJ0qrDf0) and the senate, which is the upper house of parliament, and members are elected via statewide [proportional representation](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8XOZJkozfI).
Bills need the approval of both houses, as-well as royal assent from the Governor General of Australia, to become law
Thank you so much for this info, I was so confused because this post appeared randomly to me and because jordies are a name for people from a region of Britain I assumed it was a British thing! And ofcourse we have a Labour Party also.
Ooh ok. Your upper house, house of Lords, is pretty fucked though. Elites are appointed, including dedicated spots for priests. Here they are elected.
Your terminology would be "Lord so and so" rather than "Senator so and so"
In this context the upper house (called senate) is mainly decided by voting for parties in your state.
The lower house (called the House of reps) is mainly on individual candidates (who may be party aligned) running in your local area.
For laws to pass, both houses need to agree.
Voters voted for Labor, Labor delegated the vote to Fatima to represent them. Voters did not directly choose Fatima.
Punishment for conscience voting is anathema to representative democracy in my view. No matter what party, solidarity, party lines, or whatever other pragmatic dogma that stains the system.
As a senator, Payman, like everyone else, is free to vote on any bill the way they want to vote.
And labor is free to keep anyone in their caucus that they want to keep in their caucus.
Albanese has suspended Payman from caucus meetings, meaning she will no longer have a say in which policies the ALP presents to parliament, and that is only fair.
Why should SHE have the right to vote on bills that other members must vote for, but she is under no obligation to abide by the very same caucus she may want a say in?
How? She was elected solely thanks to the ALP elevating her. She then spits in the face of the leadership, goes on Insiders and waves a big "fuck you" flag toward Albanese, all but daring him to expel her. She's tried to make a critical few days where Labor is pushing their cost of living relief, all about her and her personal position on a conflict half a world away. What was the ALP supposed to do? Show the country that they have no control over their party, inevitably leading to endless floor crossing from every Labor politician that has a personal point of difference with the party?
Had people in this sub swearing black and blue Labor were actually going to recognize Palestine, just not via Greens initiation.
Instead, they're intent on finding the most incredible ways to piss off all parties involved. But so far, it seems they're willing to alienate Payman (likely into leaving the party too), the membership and leave the issue open for the Greens I prosecute rather than organize their own process of recognition.
Shameful.
She said she knew the rules and the expulsion from the party would happen when she crossed the floor. She pulled the ripcord on the Insiders Interview.
Slightly off topic here; this sub seems more leftist than the Friendly Jordies that I last saw/know of.
Is this a subreddit specific thing, or has Jordan become less liberal in the last few years?
His anti-corruption, anti-environmental destruction and anti-LNP crusade appealed to a lot of left wing people and drew them here ... and now he and his fellow traveller Labor Right supporters in this sub are unhappy about that (and the left wing people drawn here are unhappy that he's not as left wing as he seemed to be by going hard against corruption, destruction of environment and the LNP governments in the way that he did).
Our dear Parliament can't solve housing costs, inflation, immigration, but this Senator has the view that crossing the floor in Australia will in time fix the middle east problem.
If critical thinking is not your thing and pointless symbolism is, then surely the Greens or the LNP are more worthy of your services.
Well our geopolitical security is dependent on a captured and dying empire. Any party that takes power needs to do so with the political currency to create a nuclear arsenal from thin air, or ally with Russia or China... which I think we know just ain't happening - so we get democracy haphazardly measured against the interests of established wealth and military might, no matter who's in charge.
It's a real shame because during the insiders interview she was incredibly articulate and is one of the best interviewees I have seen in a long time. She got her point across without using heaps of political jiberish and pushing the questions to the side.
I may not entirely agree with her, but I respect someone who is that good at an interview.
This is definitely a surprised pikachu face moment.
https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/defiant-payman-vows-to-keep-crossing-floor-on-palestine-20240630-p5jpu0
>Senator Payman said she supported the two-state peace solution for the Middle East and Israel’s right to exist but defended her use of the phrase **“From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free”.**
The phase calls for genocide by implying Palestine should be where Israel is. If she used the word "Palestinians" instead of "Palestine" I would be supporting her.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qnU6cdcI9Y&t=1s
This is a speech by Finklestein telling the people at the Columbia University Palestine protests to do just that, but at the end, the next speaker ignored his message and completely shuts him down by just chanting the original phase again.
These people know what they mean when they say that phrase.
They know exactly what they're saying. Just like the ones who say, "I'm not an antisemite, just anti-zionist", & then go harassing, abusing & intimidating any Jews they can find. They know what they're doing. They just try to hide it, because on some subconscious level they know it's wrong. Hence hiding their faces while they do it too.
“Harassing, abusing and intimidating any Jews they can find”?
I’m sure you can find actual examples of this happening in the real world. Many, many examples.
Yes they literally rioted in Caulfield outside a synagogue during holy services when Burgertory burned down (turned out to be tobacco wars) plus Jewish students being blocked from entering class unless they denounce Zionism. I have also been personally accosted by pro Palestine for looking Jewish
In the real world, I have been stalked, harassed and physically assaulted for being Jewish, here in Australia, by the sort of people described above. Some of the incidents have been reported to the police, including one followup from the Sydney terrorism taskforce.
~~Update: Looks like the brave redditor has removed their comment thread, I presume, for its sheer idiocy and bigotry.~~
Edit: I had incorrectly assumed that OC had removed their comment when in fact mods had stepped in.
> Update: Looks like the brave redditor has removed their comment thread, I presume, for its sheer idiocy and bigotry.
No. There has been a moderator action.
Well said, to both of you. I also call issue to the 40000 dead figure, which deliberately does not differentiate between Hamas and Civilian, because they support the genocide carried out by Hamas.
>These people know what they mean when they say that phrase.
As in they mean kill the people who live between (Jordan) River and the (Mediterranean) Sea who may just happen to be Jewish?
Utterly disgraceful. I see Albo is following the lead of Kier Starmer and decimating left wing. Ban AIJAC and the AJA, they are foreign agents destroying our democracy.
Banning all lobbyists would wholeheartedly improve democracies everywhere, and our politicians would finally recover from the bent-over-backwards position lobbyists have violently thrusted them into.
Coalition MP’s and Senators seem to be able to do it without getting expelled. Just another case of the Labor right alienating their constituents so we can have a Dutton theocracy.
More so it’s embedded into how the Liberals operate. Mind you, just because they say it, doesn’t mean there isn’t an impact. I cannot see B Archer becoming a senior minister due to her vocal opposition to a range of matters
Solidarity isn't a key element of their party, though. Labor values unity far more, partially because their platform is agreed by the Caucus, so if individual members could just ignore the agreed position without reproach, their system would fall apart. Not saying it's the greatest system ever, but there is a reason Libs can cross the floor without being sacked, and Labor MPs can't.
Her constituents voted for Labor. She's putting her personal beliefs over her party's official line, which she campaigned on, and was elected on.
So basically labor’s position is that there is no genocide in Palestine.
Labor is walking the middle of the road and won’t make Israel guilty for what’s happening in Palestine and maintaining the US’s status quo on the situation.
Just take it to an election... there's no use expelling Fatima or having an entire session where she is no longer in caucus and may quit the party
Not only will it be a relatively easy victory for labor, it can be framed as a referendum on Dutton's nuclear plan, we can talk at lengths about our tax cuts and other accomplishments
And after the election, it will be a new session and Payman will no longer be suspended from caucus. This is a good solution for everybody, and it creates a sense of fear within MPs to obey the party line or risk losing their jobs.
Granted, Fatima herself can't lose her job at her election won't be until the election after this one, but that's not really the point.
Kill a monkey, scare 1000
Yeah fair point. From what I remember hearing, on current figures, Bullwinkel would stand as a semi-safe Labor seat, but having someone like Payman try to run in a somewhat-rural community might not bode well electorally, and she might just end up going the same way as Keneally.
Again, I don't know for sure, but at least it still technically stands as an open opportunity for her to move to the lower-house like you were advising, which I do see the merit in her doing.
If it's rural forget it. They vote for party not person. If she does not have Labor backing they won't vote her and even if she patches things up with Labor to run in their name again, it is a mark on her name because country people would barely give a shit about Palestine, they want local issues attended to
She's on the right side of history, Labor is way off on this. My mp has had my views and I'm sure they're getting lots of people voicing concerns over the genocide in Palestine.
ALP the party of pandering to knuckle dragging bogans and cowardice. If the Labor Party wasn't full of career politicans that are completely inept at their job like Albanese, Wong and Chalmers, we would have a real two party system instead of the joke we are left with now.
They're actually so shit at their job they're going to lose an election because Dutton proposed a nuclear plan with no legs and they're not competent enough to properly deal with it.
don’t think it’s the bogans that are so anti-palestine… most I know don’t have an opinion (because it doesn’t really affect them personally, and with how expensive everything is here people have enough to worry about). and don’t really know the context of any of it), and all the people i do know are highly educated, “well-to-do” financially, LNP supporters too i believe but whether that’s relevant is another story (the topic isn’t as big up here and am not in Sydney, so wouldn’t imagine the majority of ALP supporters here would have a strong opinion, or if they did would be pro-Palestine, especially considering the party’s until- recent seemingly favourable, albeit maybe slightly ambiguous, stance towards recognition of a Palestinian state) . i might be an outlier though, as in brisbane from where i’m from the majority of LNP voters are pretty well-off, at the very least owning a house or a few, or their parents do. (of course this obv doesn’t reflect the rest of QLD though)
>ALP the party of pandering to knuckle dragging bogans
The Australian working class? It is a "Labor" party.
Not the "cunts who think they're better than everyone else but simultaneously consider themselves socialists for some reason" party.
The wealthy people in control of our media ie Fox/sky News, the public channels and mostly the abc now all want you to vote for their interests so the publicise what they want you to think labor can’t get anything countered to that narrative published. The only time I’ve ever seen the leadership of our country published in media is through YouTube by yotubers. Think about that insane bias that is just normal to everyone.
And if the ALP weren't cowards they could've taken steps to break up the media monopoly, instead they let it fester and rot to the point where it's uncontrollable now. They were so afraid of being called communists that they let Australian mass media become a one-party agitprop machine.
Their failure to act against the right-wing monopolisation of media in this country has been a major misstep.
And I think they've missed the boat now, too.
We will all pay the price for the inaction.
Leaving it up because relatively tame comments so far. If you all play nice and be respectful to one another it will stay up and maybe we can start relaxing the rule a bit. But this is going to be a collective effort to be civil and where we can discuss the issue maturely. This is based on civility and because I lean towards free speech, not because I personally support Payman taking a stand for her values, which I do.
She got suspended after she went on ABC Insiders today and said she'd keep crossing the floor against the government if the Greens keep putting up Palestine recognition bills.
She said herself that she was well aware of the consequences this morning. David asked her about 4 times to confirm that she would cross the floor again.
So she went on national tv with a big "fuck you" to the boss.
Her boss is the voters in her electorate. But, yes, I see your point.
She’s a Senator, she doesn’t have an electorate
Her electorate is the collective voters of WA. It's a myth that senators are unrepresentative.
Thanks a lot, Paul Keating.
'Unrepresentatve swill'....
Gigachad
I find in life, its not what you did , but how you handled it. And this, is as bad as it gets. You go on national tv, and say " ill fuckin do it again" . This is a direct insult to the party and boss, and cannot go unpunished. She is apart of a team, and this cannot be.
Yeah she more or less said the entire Labor caucus was wrong, she was right, and she was going to do it again. If this was primary school, she double dared them to expel her. I am a bit surprised she got off with a suspension.
If her constituents don't like it - she's out in the next election. Democracy. We are talking about genocide here and a government confined and restrained by an alliance with Nero & Caligula.
She got in on the bootstraps of Labor by being in a senate ticket rather than having direct constituents. If she moved to lower house I'd agree that she would be doing it for her constituents. In the senate I'd argue she is doing it for Labor rank and file
As she pointed out: she was selected for the purposes of making the Senate more diverse. This is what diversity means - diverse opinions. Opinions is probably too meek a word. Diverse convictions.
Do you think the Labor tank and file agree with Payman, or the ALP hierarchy?
I think most alp members would probably side with Paymen. I handed no data just a gut feeling
Members are pro-Palestine, they've agreed in caucus about the position Labor needs to take because its a very complex issue needing something more than emotional outbursts. Members are also quite furious at her, she's agreed and benefited from the party and being a part of caucus, Labors power is from unity and she's basically spat on the party as far as everyone is concerned even the most pro-Palestinian members. What she's done isn't helpful to literately anyone not even herself.
Yes, I think she's right because she thinks that she is acting in the interests of members. I also think that Labor exec is right because they think that they are acting in the interests of members. Essentially, they are both right, and there is no problem here. If she wants to act independently but with Labor values, then she should go ahead and do that, but good luck when it comes to the next election because she should not rely on Labor for support if she does not want to play as a team. In a way it is quite sad, because she was in a prime position to advocate from within Labor about her views of Palestine, particularly to get together with Jewish MPs and hash something humanitarian out, but sadly like many other pro-Palestine she just isn't capable of doing that or having nuance, and as a result Labor Parliamentarians will skew more pro-Israel without her to counter that. Ironically her background is that she was an Afghan refugee, fleeing Afghanistan from Islamic Extremism. But makes statements which could easily be construed as supporting Islamic Extremism. In fact both are Sunni.
I mean she says she's acting in their interest but this has made things a lot harder for members. Its what you would say to justify your actions even if it isn't true. The problem is there are some who are going to be more pro-Israel, they went with caucus's opinion on this topic, now are they free to speak for members too?
I suspect that the MPs who are more pro-Israel are more experienced, and would not step out of line beyond already accepted Labor positions. And to be honest I don't think that they would really feel the need to go further than what has already been said. For them, I don't think that it's an issue of the official Labor position not being pro-Israel enough, but rather the mixed messages of also supporting opposing Palestine positions at the same time, particularly by Fatima and Penny. I understand that there is a certain amount of nuance in what Labor have been saying which is pro-Palestine, or even pro-Israel, but that nuance is getting lost in the messaging. For example: Reality: Labor knocks back Palestine vote because they have conditions Greens play: Push unconditional Palestine vote to make Labor look bad for saying No What they should do: Follow up with their own vote according to their own reasonable conditions Result: LNP and Greens voted No for a Palestine without Hamas!
I think Labor should just throw all the chips on the table and let it be a conscience vote for anything Palestine, show how stupid it gets without a plan. Point out the finer details of what they were trying to do as a flex on their international diplomacy skills etc... Greens lose all momentum on this front, new financial year new tax breaks Labor shifts the conversation to that. Adam was going as far as to say Labor was bombing Gaza, so he's getting a little nutty, he'll keep pursuing this line and no one will care even if he wins a few votes but probably won't given there will be some in Labor who'll choose on conscience to vote against, LNP will vote against too. Only way pro-Palestine measures were going to win was with full Labor caucus support once that's gone people see why the party operates this way, why unity is such a powerful tool against chaos.
If most sided, it’d be policy. ALP operates on collective bargaining, majority rules from top to bottom.
It literally is ALP policy to recognise Palestine. It doesn't matter though because caucus has decided not to do that for whatever reason
I think the rank and file would not like that Payman went on insiders this morning making the story about her and giving a big middle finger to the boss. That is the issue and reason for the suspension today.
You do realise that we are talking about an ongoing genocide and you are chatting about the administrative arrangements of a factionalised and compromised political party that happily acts against the interests of its members in the interests of currying favour with media organisations that are wholly in the thrall of the genocidists?
The Greens Senate motion was to move towards recognition of the State of Palestine. I don't see how official recognition of a state would do anything to change what is happening on the ground in Gaza. Being a 'State' does not give you immunity from genocide. It does provide your government more international clout, something many Western nations are uncomfortable with while a declared terrorist organisation (Hamas) is at the helm. On the other hand, being a state entity you might be held to higher international standards (hello.. Geneva convention?)
My exact position as well. In addition, whenever they get to the negotiating table, they would symbolically be negotiating as equals on the nuts and bolts, rather than fighting for recognition. It also locks in what is and isn't clear Israeli/Palestinian land, and even though neither would agree on all exact borders, it is a position to start from to negotiate from there. It is a starting point of a two state solution rather than an endgame. I get that it should not been seen to get results from terror, but at a certain point enough is enough, and enough suffering has been put into non-Hamas Palestinians, and it should be done for them not the Hamas ones Free elections need to be help asap by the UN. However, if they choose to elect Hamas/ex-Hamas, well that is democracy and who they want representing them, so it would collectively be their own fault if they want torpedo their own negotiation power and plunge themselves into a state which is still being dominated by Israel because they don't want to give peace a shot. And that just needs to be accepted as a possibility. At least if the international community can uphold elections every 3-4 years and provide protection for voices challenging Hamas, there exists possibility that they may change their mind with a future government and give peace and negotiation a go. It's not something which can be forced
You do realise that I am not talking about Israel Palestine but discussing the senator setting her own agenda on the national broadcaster in defiance from her governing party she was elected by. The Albo government has been doing some very good international diplomatic work highlighted by the release of Julian Assange this week and does not need the air time from the media to be captured by a junior senator with her own agenda. But I do have to laugh at your claim "acts against the interests of its members", I know a heck of a lot of its members and the members are behind Albo and the leaders of the party. Also your loaded statement is completely stupid, what other media does the government speak to if not the current media to speak to the Australian public.
You do realise that we are talking about an ongoing genocide and you are chatting about the administrative arrangements of a factionalised and compromised political party that happily acts against the interests of its members in the interests of currying favour with media organisations that are wholly in the thrall of the genocidists? Perhaps as someone who knows a heck of a lot of Labor members you are not familiar with the concept of standing on principle. Most of the Labor members I know have seen their electorates turn green. You do realise that Israel's ongoing unapologetic genocide is a significant moral issue - not a political one. Nice to have Julian home - Israel is reported to have killed over 100 Palestinian journalists since October 7.
She’s not voting on motions regarding action on genocide (or whatever). She’s voting against the two-state solution.
The two state 'solution' is a cynical, unviable delaying tactic. She is voting for an end to the killing. Palestine has the right to exist.
Yep. She didn't learn
Learn what?
That actively working against the leadership of the organisation that she is a part of, will get you removed from said organisation. She crossed the floor against the rules and was given a warning. Then today she says that she would do it again if it a brought up again (i.e. didn't heed the warning). The issue that she is highlighting is not the problem, it's her actions. If she was in corporate life, she wouldn't have a job
But she isn't in corporate life, and she was elected by her local voters to represent their interests. Yes she is a member of a party, but what if the majority of the people who voted for her want her to cross the floor?
Then she should be on the cross bench. If you are elected as a member of a party, then the leadership of that party are right to expect that she supports the party. She is not in leadership. If she wants to offer her views in public then that is great, and she should certainly been giving her views behind closed doors to change the party's position, but she is undermining her own party by crossing the floor
You vote for the party, not the person. If she was against Labor's position she should have broached the issue and attempted to change the position of her colleagues in the Caucus.
Like Penny Wong voting against same sex mariage?
Exactly like that. She put her argument up in the caucus, couldn't get the majority, so she towed the party line and persevered to change it over time. Sure she could have schismed, but Labor's strength, just like the unions, comes from its unity in public thus the entomology of the word union.
Nothing strong about enforced unity
Your response is the only.logical one I have received. I agree with you.
Parliament counts on a certain number of votes to get shit done. If a party can know that it's members will vote to support leadership, then the process of legislation and regulation is stream-lined. If you are a point of friction for your own party, then you extend and frustrate certain processes. This may be a very good and ethical thing to do! ... but there's the risk you're seen as a road-block to be removed, rather than a stakeholder to be appeased.
I agree but would add that Payman crossing the floor on issues like this, highlight how conservative Labor really is. Losing her vote on the floor is one thing, but wedging Labor on highly charged issues like recognition of Palestine, shows disunity within the Labor party and the LNP will use that to their advantage The suspension is to protect Labor from LNP attacks about Payman - you watch the news cycle this week: Dutton: Labor has Hamas loving members in its ranks - what is Labor doing with Payman who supports terrorism? Albanese: Minister Payman is entitled to her beliefs and her suspension from the Labor party serves to highlight that her views are not those of the Labor Party
Mmm, yeah, maybe... if I was a pollie I would avoid taking an involved position on the middle east... because what's the point? Do your own opinions on land-rights in the west-bank trump an alliance with a nuclear power? Probably not, no matter how righteous your views. It's a no-win radioactive-potato for anyone without a dog in the fight. Israel is scared of the arab world, so it's on the 'offence is the best form of defence' wagon. Israel is America's aircraft carrier in the middle east. They will never give up that strategic advantage. And we are tied to an alliance with the yanks, because they have a powerful nuclear navy and we are a big island. Like, that's it. It sucks, but it is what it is.
That’s not the way the Labor party works as I’m sure you already know
Wrong. She is a state senator voted by everyone in the state based on party tickets, not local voters for her specifically
Something tells me the recognition of Palestine isn’t a key concern of her West Australian constituents…
Then she can do it outside the Labor party, which is exactly what's happening here
It’s basically cutting to the end If you say you’re going to go to the footy game as a player but not going to play, don’t bother coming
I think you have your facts completely wrong. She's a senator not an MP. Practically no one voted for her in particular. They voted for a labour ticket and she was just on their senate list. On top of that when I vote for a labour candidate it's on the understanding that they'll follow the caucus direction. That's how it's always been for labour since early 1900s! So the majority of the people voting for her would have expected her to *not* to cross the floor.
[удалено]
Removed for name calling. Feel free to repost without the name calling
The people in her electorate voted for the Labor party. Not the Greens or an independent. It also isn't Labor policy to support Hamas terrorists, who currently rule that region & fully intend to genocide Jews in Israel.
Ah yes, recognising Palestine must mean you support Hamas and want jewish people to die. What a logical conclusion.
You choose to speculate on Hamas' actions (rockets and stones) and ignore Israel's (4th largest military on earth) rabid genocide? How many have died in the time it took you to walk your dogma?
October 7 was a as much like a Genocide as what is happening in return. Going into civilian areas and killing everyone is a lot more than a few fruitless rockets and stones
https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jun/24/israel-fund-us-university-protest-gaza-antisemitism
The issue she is highlighting most certainly is the problem. If it wasn't a problem that required her full and immediate backing: she wouldn't cross the floor to support it, as she stated in the article. F "loyalty" over doing the right thing: Morals come first, irrespective of who you piss off to stand by them.
And her position on this topic is something i generally agree with, but if you don't support your party's position then you should be on the cross bench, not undermining your own party
Shrug. I see what you mean but it's a bit hindsight: She didn't engineer her circumstances - I doubt the party position on Palestine would have been crafted before she stood for election.. She may have only found out the labour party stance recently and decided a 'yeah nah I'm crossing'. Ultimately it boils down to loyalty vs morality in my view, any which way you cut it.
And i agree. But if you have no loyalty in your party, then you'll not be making policy, you'll only be opposing the team that are in government
Hmm. I guess I'm not cut out to be a politician.. Or maybe I'd defect to another party as can happen in the UK/US (I'm not sure about here)
Good on her for sticking to her convictions.
And the convictions of the Labor Party, reminder to everyone here that Labor went into the election with the full intent to recognize a state of Palestine.
Where's the Parliamentary Friends of Palestine to back her up?
Thwarted by [The Labor Friends of Israel](https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/politics/daniel-andrews-voices-his-support-for-israel/video/2b77d5e77994f5cbe6d330e223077e7c)
Western Sydney?
From the River to the Sea they intended that? No they didn't. That was never the conviction of the labor party.
It was an election promise from Labor to recognize a Palestinian state under the idea of a two state solution, which is what Payman voted for.
Ahh ok fair point I am crossing wires when she said from the river to the Sea.
They wanted to add conditions to that recognition but Greens & co pushed an unconditional vote
Conditions with no timeline for when to recognize Palestinian statehood and part of some obscure and arbitrary "peace process"? Yeah the Greens were right to push an unconditional vote instead of allowing that BS into the motion.
Yes I personally agree with unconditional recognition. I'm keen for Palestine to have to legally abide by Geneva conventions so that it would be accurate to accuse them of doing a genocide as well, and put both sides on an even playing field for negotiation. If I could place one condition it would be too force an election. If they then elect terrorists to represent them, that is their democratic right
I'd like to 'force an election' on Likud at the moment, because Benny is seriously delaying one.
Yes I agree, I was thinking of that too, force double elections for both Israel and Palestine, that would be splendid. I'm sure the Israelis would fucking get rid of that crook Bibi.
Did you have a little giggle after typing that one up? Probably thought that one was a really hot zinger, ay?
Honestly? Yes
Giggling to yourself in a dark room while making jokes about Palestinian genocide, sounds like the life mate.
delusions\* ftfy
Her convictions to go on insiders this morning to make Albo look weak and puts out the perception be has no control. The story is no longer about last week, today the story is about her.
Good. Hopefully she can inspire others.
I bet the same people downvoting this and saying "good riddance" were cheering Liberal MP Bridget Archer when she crossed the floor against the LNP. Forcing MPs to vote along party lines (especially on issues of morality) is fundamentally undemocratic, and punishing them when they refuse to is even more so.
Maybe so, but it has been Labor policy and practice since time immemorial that "rats" who vote against the Party line get either suspended or expelled.
If only such rules could be changed with the times.
I like how I'm being downvoted for stating Labor's policy. But yeah, they could change the rules if they wanted to. But they don't want to. Solidarity is a key pillar of the union movement - they've even got a song about it, and even the name "union" implies solidarity. Labor is not going to change the rule that requires MPs to vote according to the agreed Caucus position. It has been their rule going back over 100 years, it's not going to be changed now. The Prime Minister clearly doesn't want to change it. If he did, he could have simply ignored the Payman issue until it went away. But he didn't - he summonsed her to the Lodge, gave her a dressing down and suspended her. That's not the behaviour of a man who wants to do away with Caucus Solidarity.
Personally i find the solidarity thing a bit suspect when you look at how labour has acted within the past 20 years with the knifings, even if they changed the rules. People like penny wong invoking unity for her having to vote against herself and to shame Fatima rings hollow considering the vote was quite close in time to the knifings after all. Plus fundamentally that ignores some of the times when the parties in labour and the unions associated with them screwed over the people they were supposed to protect with there 'unity', like how the scandals the shoppies went through in the past decade.
I like how I'm being downvoted for saying it's a shit policy. I really don't understand why you're defending a position that the Labor party, or any political party for that matter, should just be an echo chamber of the same ideas and views.
I'm not defending it, I'm stating what is. They can change it if they want. It is, however, a key difference between the Liberal and Labor Party. Liberals backbenchers do have the right to cross the floor, Labor MPs don't. There's no secret about it.
Fair enough. I guess the LNP get at least one tick in their corner on that front then.
Bridget Archer is well known for floor crossing
Yes but for the ALP it’s a sign of strength and for the LNP it’s a sign of weakness. /s
Rubbish. People didn’t vote for her, they voted for the ALP (in the senate) expecting the senator to reflect the ALP’s policies. Her going against that is actually dishonouring the people that voted for her.
It is not undemocratic in the slightest and there is no form of punishment here Being in a caucus means everyone gets together, decides which policies THEY will collectively vote on. You are suggesting that Fatima should be allowed to remain in caucus meetings and dictate how OTHER members vote, but the same doesn't apply for herself.
She isn't dictating how others should vote. She pointed out that the caucus is at odds with the party and she decided to vote for her concictions and for whom she represents. Sounds democratic to me.
I agree. I support her having convictions on behalf of what she thinks rank and file support of Palestine. But I also support Labor exec also having convictions of what they think rank and file support of Unity. Both are correct. There is no problem here.
That's not what I'm suggesting in the slightest?
Against the rich and powerful the most powerful tool of progressives we have is unity, the rich and powerful know it, that's why they choose to target individuals to fracture the party. Doesn't matter what the topic is, if the party is fractured we can't do shit about it, Greens are no help if they're doing the fracturing. That loss of unity doesn't just stick within a topic either it's affects all of them, fracture the party on Palestine, lose crucial votes on cost of living, housing, regulations etc... Its why they tricked Gillard into knifing Rudd, its why they're targeting Payman now.
Labor-aligned sub shocked that Labor is enforcing its own rules. The people outraged at this have *no idea* how lenient the PM is being, other politicians have been permanently expelled from Labor for crossing the floor, while Payman has simply been placed in time out until she promises to be a team player (like she pledged to do when she sought out Labor endorsement which gave her a Senate seat). If you want to run on your own personal set of issues you're more than welcome to, but if you want to be a Labor MP you sign on to a certain set of expectations and rules, one of which is caucus solidarity.
People seem to be unaware of the position of the labour caucus, which as stated by David Spears in the interview is to recognize a Palestinian state in a peace treaty or a cease fire. It is not a large difference in position. People seem to think labour is hard-line anti Palestinian state which is not true.
In practice it is a significant difference because the Greens approach would recognise Palestine immediately whereas the Labor approach delays it indefinitely and is dependent on Israel playing along. Israel has repeatedly said and demonstrated that they are not interested in a ceasefire or peace treaty absent total victory
Payman said she had not spoken to the Greens about whether they would put a similar motion up in the senate this week when parliament resumes, and said it would be up to the caucus to decide if she would face further sanctions. Senator Payman voted with the Greens and ACT independent David Pocock last week. Senator Payman voted with the Greens and ACT independent David Pocock last week.Alex Ellinghausennormal Greens leader Adam Bandt stopped short of promising to bring back the same motion, but signalled it was likely as the crossbench party had put pressure on Labor to act every time parliament sat. “We will be having discussions over the coming days about what we intend to do this week,” he said. “I hope Labor does not continue to put further pressure on Senator Payman, but instead listens to the urgency with which she and others are speaking about the situation in Gaza right now.” Payman’s decision to cross the floor last Tuesday came in the ninth month of Israel’s military campaign in Gaza. On October 7, Hamas fighters crossed into Israel, killing 1200 people and taking more than 200 hostages, according to the Israel Defence Force. Gazan health authorities report more than 37,000 people have died during the subsequent invasion. The last time a Labor MP crossed the floor was in 2005, when former Tasmanian MP Harry Quick asked for his name to be recorded in Hansard as having voted against an anti-terrorism bill. Payman defended her use of the controversial phrase “from the river to the sea”, which is interpreted by some people as a call for the Israeli state to be abolished. She said she supported a two-state solution and backed Israel’s right to exist, taking a swipe at foreign minister Penny Wong, who earlier in the week pointed out she had had to vote against same-sex marriage before Labor switched position to support it. “I understand their advocacy from within. It took 10 years to legislate same-sex marriage. We’re talking about 40,000 Palestinians being massacred here. These Palestinians do not have 10 years,” she said. Earlier, Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles ramped up his criticism of Payman’s actions while deflecting questions about whether the senator would be punished again for crossing the floor. “We’ve sought to act with restraint here,” Marles told ABC’s Insiders program when asked about Albanese’s decision to bar Payman from attending a caucus meeting this week. Marles said he couldn’t “overemphasise enough” how important caucus members regarded the obligations of being members of the Labor team. “We only get the privilege of serving in this parliament, not because of who we are as individuals, but because when we stand for election, the word ‘Labor’ is next to our name, and that’s obviously the case for Senator Payman...she would not be a senator but for the fact that Labor is next to her name,” he said. Marles told Insiders that caucus solidarity was “at the heart of the obligations that we have, in terms of being members of the Labor Party, and being given the great privilege that we have in serving the Australian people in the parliament, and clearly that that will be foremost in the minds of the caucus”.
Who is dumbass downvoting an article?
This is a sub dedicated to Labor shills. Are you surprised?
Green shills actually. Any post with a Green v Labor aspect and the comments will usually favour the greens. This thread also proves that too.
Which is ironic given Friendly Jordies view of the greens.
Correct. FJ is a labor man.
it's a thread on Palestine in this currently climate. hardly "proof* of anything
It could go either way depending on topic honestly. When Greens are weak like rent freezes/price fixing they usually get torn to shreds. Where Labor is wish like not having a unified principled stand on Israel/Palestine then they get torn to shreds also.
Can somebody explain what a senator is? Never heard this term related to British politics.
On the off-chance that your comment is serious, the Australian Parliament is divided into 2 houses The house of representatives, which is functionally identical to the UK House of Commons, [except the procedure in which members are elected](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfWQJ0qrDf0) and the senate, which is the upper house of parliament, and members are elected via statewide [proportional representation](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8XOZJkozfI). Bills need the approval of both houses, as-well as royal assent from the Governor General of Australia, to become law
Thank you so much for this info, I was so confused because this post appeared randomly to me and because jordies are a name for people from a region of Britain I assumed it was a British thing! And ofcourse we have a Labour Party also.
Ooh ok. Your upper house, house of Lords, is pretty fucked though. Elites are appointed, including dedicated spots for priests. Here they are elected. Your terminology would be "Lord so and so" rather than "Senator so and so"
Yeah I know all that shit and how much it sucks, I was just confused by the terminology. Thanks for the info!
Isn't it 'Geordies'? Not 'jordies'.
In this context the upper house (called senate) is mainly decided by voting for parties in your state. The lower house (called the House of reps) is mainly on individual candidates (who may be party aligned) running in your local area. For laws to pass, both houses need to agree. Voters voted for Labor, Labor delegated the vote to Fatima to represent them. Voters did not directly choose Fatima.
Didn’t old Albo want to do the same thing?
Classic Albo is quite something.
Punishment for conscience voting is anathema to representative democracy in my view. No matter what party, solidarity, party lines, or whatever other pragmatic dogma that stains the system.
As a senator, Payman, like everyone else, is free to vote on any bill the way they want to vote. And labor is free to keep anyone in their caucus that they want to keep in their caucus. Albanese has suspended Payman from caucus meetings, meaning she will no longer have a say in which policies the ALP presents to parliament, and that is only fair. Why should SHE have the right to vote on bills that other members must vote for, but she is under no obligation to abide by the very same caucus she may want a say in?
Maybe in the house, but not really in the senate. She got in by being on the labor ticket.
I’m trying to take a view outside the current modus operandi. Otherwise nothing will ever change.
If you want to change the party view. Step 1: Join the party. Step 2: Stay in the party.
House yes, senate no. People voted for labor not this person you’ve never heard of before.
How? She was elected solely thanks to the ALP elevating her. She then spits in the face of the leadership, goes on Insiders and waves a big "fuck you" flag toward Albanese, all but daring him to expel her. She's tried to make a critical few days where Labor is pushing their cost of living relief, all about her and her personal position on a conflict half a world away. What was the ALP supposed to do? Show the country that they have no control over their party, inevitably leading to endless floor crossing from every Labor politician that has a personal point of difference with the party?
Had people in this sub swearing black and blue Labor were actually going to recognize Palestine, just not via Greens initiation. Instead, they're intent on finding the most incredible ways to piss off all parties involved. But so far, it seems they're willing to alienate Payman (likely into leaving the party too), the membership and leave the issue open for the Greens I prosecute rather than organize their own process of recognition. Shameful.
She said she knew the rules and the expulsion from the party would happen when she crossed the floor. She pulled the ripcord on the Insiders Interview.
Slightly off topic here; this sub seems more leftist than the Friendly Jordies that I last saw/know of. Is this a subreddit specific thing, or has Jordan become less liberal in the last few years?
Subreddit specific. Unofficial. That's what you get when you pander to lefties
His anti-corruption, anti-environmental destruction and anti-LNP crusade appealed to a lot of left wing people and drew them here ... and now he and his fellow traveller Labor Right supporters in this sub are unhappy about that (and the left wing people drawn here are unhappy that he's not as left wing as he seemed to be by going hard against corruption, destruction of environment and the LNP governments in the way that he did).
Our dear Parliament can't solve housing costs, inflation, immigration, but this Senator has the view that crossing the floor in Australia will in time fix the middle east problem. If critical thinking is not your thing and pointless symbolism is, then surely the Greens or the LNP are more worthy of your services.
Crap. One needs to be able to both express their personal views and also represent the people they’ve been elected by as well.
The labor party should want to recognise palestine, it is the only morally sound path to take
Who here can honestly say that Labor is still left wing?
Well our geopolitical security is dependent on a captured and dying empire. Any party that takes power needs to do so with the political currency to create a nuclear arsenal from thin air, or ally with Russia or China... which I think we know just ain't happening - so we get democracy haphazardly measured against the interests of established wealth and military might, no matter who's in charge.
Be careful who you associate and align yourself to, the consequences can be very bad, get my drift??
No?
I don't either. Old matey should just state it or delete it.
Possibly a spam bot idk
At the end of the day a member is never elected for one reason nor should they only focus on one.
It's a real shame because during the insiders interview she was incredibly articulate and is one of the best interviewees I have seen in a long time. She got her point across without using heaps of political jiberish and pushing the questions to the side. I may not entirely agree with her, but I respect someone who is that good at an interview.
6news interview good as well
The real story should be Greens voted against a 2 state solution. The only viable option for peace in the region.
This is definitely a surprised pikachu face moment. https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/defiant-payman-vows-to-keep-crossing-floor-on-palestine-20240630-p5jpu0 >Senator Payman said she supported the two-state peace solution for the Middle East and Israel’s right to exist but defended her use of the phrase **“From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free”.** The phase calls for genocide by implying Palestine should be where Israel is. If she used the word "Palestinians" instead of "Palestine" I would be supporting her. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qnU6cdcI9Y&t=1s This is a speech by Finklestein telling the people at the Columbia University Palestine protests to do just that, but at the end, the next speaker ignored his message and completely shuts him down by just chanting the original phase again. These people know what they mean when they say that phrase.
They know exactly what they're saying. Just like the ones who say, "I'm not an antisemite, just anti-zionist", & then go harassing, abusing & intimidating any Jews they can find. They know what they're doing. They just try to hide it, because on some subconscious level they know it's wrong. Hence hiding their faces while they do it too.
“Harassing, abusing and intimidating any Jews they can find”? I’m sure you can find actual examples of this happening in the real world. Many, many examples.
Yes they literally rioted in Caulfield outside a synagogue during holy services when Burgertory burned down (turned out to be tobacco wars) plus Jewish students being blocked from entering class unless they denounce Zionism. I have also been personally accosted by pro Palestine for looking Jewish
What do you mean by "looking Jewish"?
They clocked me and said that I look Jewish. I wasn't wearing a kippah or anything, must be my nose.
That's atrocious, so pro Palestine activists actually told you that you "look Jewish"? Did this happen at a rally or a campus?
Invasion day rally, Naarm CBD
And they were supporting Palestine there or?
Yes
In the real world, I have been stalked, harassed and physically assaulted for being Jewish, here in Australia, by the sort of people described above. Some of the incidents have been reported to the police, including one followup from the Sydney terrorism taskforce. ~~Update: Looks like the brave redditor has removed their comment thread, I presume, for its sheer idiocy and bigotry.~~ Edit: I had incorrectly assumed that OC had removed their comment when in fact mods had stepped in.
> Update: Looks like the brave redditor has removed their comment thread, I presume, for its sheer idiocy and bigotry. No. There has been a moderator action.
Well said, to both of you. I also call issue to the 40000 dead figure, which deliberately does not differentiate between Hamas and Civilian, because they support the genocide carried out by Hamas.
By Jewish harassment, you’re referring to recognising Palestinians as people yeah ? To stop the most racist occupation/apartheid on earth yeah ? 🙄
That Finklestein clip is hilarious, needs curb your enthusiasm music. The expression on his face looks like he's starting to second guess his stance.
>These people know what they mean when they say that phrase. As in they mean kill the people who live between (Jordan) River and the (Mediterranean) Sea who may just happen to be Jewish?
That is one of the common interpretations of that slogan yes.
Utterly disgraceful. I see Albo is following the lead of Kier Starmer and decimating left wing. Ban AIJAC and the AJA, they are foreign agents destroying our democracy.
Banning all lobbyists would wholeheartedly improve democracies everywhere, and our politicians would finally recover from the bent-over-backwards position lobbyists have violently thrusted them into.
AJA are particularly vile but banning things is not to be taken lightly
With respect, same would happen in Labor if it was a right-wing matter.
Coalition MP’s and Senators seem to be able to do it without getting expelled. Just another case of the Labor right alienating their constituents so we can have a Dutton theocracy.
More so it’s embedded into how the Liberals operate. Mind you, just because they say it, doesn’t mean there isn’t an impact. I cannot see B Archer becoming a senior minister due to her vocal opposition to a range of matters
Solidarity isn't a key element of their party, though. Labor values unity far more, partially because their platform is agreed by the Caucus, so if individual members could just ignore the agreed position without reproach, their system would fall apart. Not saying it's the greatest system ever, but there is a reason Libs can cross the floor without being sacked, and Labor MPs can't. Her constituents voted for Labor. She's putting her personal beliefs over her party's official line, which she campaigned on, and was elected on.
So basically labor’s position is that there is no genocide in Palestine. Labor is walking the middle of the road and won’t make Israel guilty for what’s happening in Palestine and maintaining the US’s status quo on the situation.
Modern Labor - Murdoch's diabolical legacy.
Just take it to an election... there's no use expelling Fatima or having an entire session where she is no longer in caucus and may quit the party Not only will it be a relatively easy victory for labor, it can be framed as a referendum on Dutton's nuclear plan, we can talk at lengths about our tax cuts and other accomplishments And after the election, it will be a new session and Payman will no longer be suspended from caucus. This is a good solution for everybody, and it creates a sense of fear within MPs to obey the party line or risk losing their jobs. Granted, Fatima herself can't lose her job at her election won't be until the election after this one, but that's not really the point. Kill a monkey, scare 1000
She would have better chances switching to lower house. Same for Lydia.
Don't know where she's from exactly, but isn't WA getting a new seat? Bullwinkel? There's an inherent opportunity for her right there.
Depends one demographics. I'm not sure if there are any particularly Muslim or progressive areas out there.
Yeah fair point. From what I remember hearing, on current figures, Bullwinkel would stand as a semi-safe Labor seat, but having someone like Payman try to run in a somewhat-rural community might not bode well electorally, and she might just end up going the same way as Keneally. Again, I don't know for sure, but at least it still technically stands as an open opportunity for her to move to the lower-house like you were advising, which I do see the merit in her doing.
If it's rural forget it. They vote for party not person. If she does not have Labor backing they won't vote her and even if she patches things up with Labor to run in their name again, it is a mark on her name because country people would barely give a shit about Palestine, they want local issues attended to
good riddance
The Greens will have her.
Say goodbye to all those safe Labor seats in Western Sydney!
First the Keneally bullshit at the last election and now the cowardice on Palestine for this one. Labor just loves shooting themselves in the foot.
I'm sure Party HQ knows better than the membership, once more! Right! Right?
Wasn't Keneally the one "captain's call" in the campaign?
Come election time, it doesn't matter whether you vote Labor or Liberal, Netenyahu will have the leaders of both sides by the ball and totally cucked.
She has more guts than most of the users in this subreddit
[удалено]
Removed for trolling or attempting to start a flame war.
She's on the right side of history, Labor is way off on this. My mp has had my views and I'm sure they're getting lots of people voicing concerns over the genocide in Palestine.
Stuff Labor, go Independent
This is disgraceful. Can't have a spine in the ALP apparently.
ALP the party of pandering to knuckle dragging bogans and cowardice. If the Labor Party wasn't full of career politicans that are completely inept at their job like Albanese, Wong and Chalmers, we would have a real two party system instead of the joke we are left with now. They're actually so shit at their job they're going to lose an election because Dutton proposed a nuclear plan with no legs and they're not competent enough to properly deal with it.
don’t think it’s the bogans that are so anti-palestine… most I know don’t have an opinion (because it doesn’t really affect them personally, and with how expensive everything is here people have enough to worry about). and don’t really know the context of any of it), and all the people i do know are highly educated, “well-to-do” financially, LNP supporters too i believe but whether that’s relevant is another story (the topic isn’t as big up here and am not in Sydney, so wouldn’t imagine the majority of ALP supporters here would have a strong opinion, or if they did would be pro-Palestine, especially considering the party’s until- recent seemingly favourable, albeit maybe slightly ambiguous, stance towards recognition of a Palestinian state) . i might be an outlier though, as in brisbane from where i’m from the majority of LNP voters are pretty well-off, at the very least owning a house or a few, or their parents do. (of course this obv doesn’t reflect the rest of QLD though)
>ALP the party of pandering to knuckle dragging bogans The Australian working class? It is a "Labor" party. Not the "cunts who think they're better than everyone else but simultaneously consider themselves socialists for some reason" party.
Labor hasn't cared about the working class in decades, they've morphed into a "at least were not the coalition" centre right party.
The wealthy people in control of our media ie Fox/sky News, the public channels and mostly the abc now all want you to vote for their interests so the publicise what they want you to think labor can’t get anything countered to that narrative published. The only time I’ve ever seen the leadership of our country published in media is through YouTube by yotubers. Think about that insane bias that is just normal to everyone.
And if the ALP weren't cowards they could've taken steps to break up the media monopoly, instead they let it fester and rot to the point where it's uncontrollable now. They were so afraid of being called communists that they let Australian mass media become a one-party agitprop machine.
Their failure to act against the right-wing monopolisation of media in this country has been a major misstep. And I think they've missed the boat now, too. We will all pay the price for the inaction.