Not just Leichhardt, but “at least six Labor branches have now passed motions backing Payman in the past 48 hours”. This whole thing is just proving how corrupted the Labor Party has become. They won’t stand up for their own members’ beliefs.
They never have. It’s always been the case that you have never been allowed to cross the floor with Labour. If you go into that party, then you know that you cannot truly speak your own mind as we see here.
Is this a reply in the wrong thread? There are a lot of threads about Labor and Payman around the last couple of days, but this one specifically is about how Labor is not even standing up for their own pre-stated beliefs and how the party caucus is going against the wishes of the party’s rank-and-file members. It’s not so much about the extremist approach to caucus solidarity that caused this mess in the first place.
My reply was simply to state that Labour has always had this stance. You can never go against the party on anything, and you have to vote what the party says. It has always been this way.
idk much about politics or how the ALP works, and didn’t even read the article, but unless there’s something specific about Labor branches that have voted to support Albanese’s position, it’s one sided reporting by definition …
Edit: I scanned the article and there appears to only be reporting on those 6 branches that were against the PM. For all we know, every other branch (hundreds?, thousands?) supports the PM. One sided.
Not just Leichhardt, but “at least six Labor branches have now passed motions backing Payman in the past 48 hours”. This whole thing is just proving how corrupted the Labor Party has become. They won’t stand up for their own members’ beliefs.
They never have. It’s always been the case that you have never been allowed to cross the floor with Labour. If you go into that party, then you know that you cannot truly speak your own mind as we see here.
Is this a reply in the wrong thread? There are a lot of threads about Labor and Payman around the last couple of days, but this one specifically is about how Labor is not even standing up for their own pre-stated beliefs and how the party caucus is going against the wishes of the party’s rank-and-file members. It’s not so much about the extremist approach to caucus solidarity that caused this mess in the first place.
My reply was simply to state that Labour has always had this stance. You can never go against the party on anything, and you have to vote what the party says. It has always been this way.
idk much about politics or how the ALP works, and didn’t even read the article, but unless there’s something specific about Labor branches that have voted to support Albanese’s position, it’s one sided reporting by definition …
Edit: I scanned the article and there appears to only be reporting on those 6 branches that were against the PM. For all we know, every other branch (hundreds?, thousands?) supports the PM. One sided.