Re: [luv-talk] Australia is governed by a party with extremist right-wing views
Hi, On 5/12/19 12:16 am, Jason White via luv-talk wrote:
I've been living overseas in recent years for work reasons, so perhaps I shouldn't comment. However, I don't recall that the Australian Labor Party was particularly progressive regarding the rights of refugees - at least when I was last paying attention. Didn't they favour mandatory detention policies, and the exclusion of off-shore detention facilities from the migration zone?
If that's the case, then the issue lies with both sides of mainstream Australian politics, making it more complicated than the question of how far to the right the current government is. So far as I can remember, the Australian Greens have been consistently supportive of upholding the human rights of refugees.
Others are welcome to correct me if any of the above are false impressions, of course.
Labor has rolled over on many things; expecting to form government to fix some of them. Labor had, in Hawke's time, more compassion for the people and their own very fair "green" agenda before the Greens party even existed -- there was no need for the Greens back then. In any case, Labor is far too close to LNP in many issues, but you can't win elections (generally), if you keep wanting to take monies out of people's pockets, especially in this depressed economy. It's more give me, give me, give me and "what's in it for me" ... AU people have to look after themselves and do what they can to support causes they believe in if they have enough funds to do so after huge rises in cost of living here. I'm pretty sure one of Keating's last policies helped get him booted, he wanted to increase the government take on capital gains -- sound familiar? Taking ANY monies from the people is a recipe for disaster in this greedy country that can see no further than the value of their dollars. Of the two major parties, I believe Labor is far ahead of LNP, but they don't present well and there are too many supporters of LNP with very strong voices and loads of money for the cause. Yeah, we are stuffed and two rights (LNP and Labor), doesn't make it "right", it just makes it sad. A.
Hey Folks, My take on a lot of this is that Australia has one of the most representative electoral systems in the world (states not withstanding)... Consequently when we elect a bunch of moralizing faux-christian fascists, it's because that's what we really want... In other words, it's not just about who is in power, it's about the sort of society we want to live in... I despair for our children... On Thu, 5 Dec 2019 at 00:33, Andrew McGlashan via luv-talk < luv-talk@luv.asn.au> wrote:
Hi,
On 5/12/19 12:16 am, Jason White via luv-talk wrote:
I've been living overseas in recent years for work reasons, so perhaps I shouldn't comment. However, I don't recall that the Australian Labor Party was particularly progressive regarding the rights of refugees - at least when I was last paying attention. Didn't they favour mandatory detention policies, and the exclusion of off-shore detention facilities from the migration zone?
If that's the case, then the issue lies with both sides of mainstream Australian politics, making it more complicated than the question of how far to the right the current government is. So far as I can remember, the Australian Greens have been consistently supportive of upholding the human rights of refugees.
Others are welcome to correct me if any of the above are false impressions, of course.
Labor has rolled over on many things; expecting to form government to fix some of them.
Labor had, in Hawke's time, more compassion for the people and their own very fair "green" agenda before the Greens party even existed -- there was no need for the Greens back then.
In any case, Labor is far too close to LNP in many issues, but you can't win elections (generally), if you keep wanting to take monies out of people's pockets, especially in this depressed economy. It's more give me, give me, give me and "what's in it for me" ... AU people have to look after themselves and do what they can to support causes they believe in if they have enough funds to do so after huge rises in cost of living here.
I'm pretty sure one of Keating's last policies helped get him booted, he wanted to increase the government take on capital gains -- sound familiar? Taking ANY monies from the people is a recipe for disaster in this greedy country that can see no further than the value of their dollars.
Of the two major parties, I believe Labor is far ahead of LNP, but they don't present well and there are too many supporters of LNP with very strong voices and loads of money for the cause.
Yeah, we are stuffed and two rights (LNP and Labor), doesn't make it "right", it just makes it sad.
A. _______________________________________________ luv-talk mailing list luv-talk@luv.asn.au https://lists.luv.asn.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/luv-talk
-- Dr Paul van den Bergen
A bit of history: A) When mandatory detention was introduced: "The Government is determined that a clear signal be sent that migration to Australia may not be achieved by simply arriving in this country and expecting to be allowed into the community ... this legislation is only intended to be an interim measure." (Immigration Minister Gerry Hand under Paul Keating 1993)? B) Refugees throw children overboard to reach Australia (Minister for Defense Peter Reith under John Howard 2001) C) "We will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come" (PM John Howard 2001) D) "onshore processing encourages people to jump into boats" (Houston report under Julia Gillard 2012) leading to re-opening of offshore processing at Nauru and Manus Island E) "From now on, any asylum seeker who arrives in Australia by boat will have no chance of being settled in Australia as refugees." (PM Kevin Rudd 2013) F) "I do not comment on on-waters matters" (Minister for Immigration Scott Morrison under Tony Abbott 2014) G) It prevents people from drowning and saves lifes (PM Tony Abbott and Opposition Leader Bill Shorten 2015) H) “The Australian Government has zero tolerance for people smuggling" (PM Scott Morrision 2019) I) "Every individual senator has to make a decision: whether they stand on the side of stronger national security or weaker national security." (Senator Cormann under Scott Morrison 2019) Both parties, supported by 75-80% of all Australian voters, having positions and acting in a way only supported by the Far-Right in Germany. the AfD, a party with close connections and leaders associated with fascism and neo-Nazism. I am living in a land that implemented anti-refugees policies German fascists and neo-Nazis dream of. Good to be here.. Peter On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 9:56 AM Paul van den Bergen via luv-talk <luv-talk@luv.asn.au> wrote:
Hey Folks,
My take on a lot of this is that Australia has one of the most representative electoral systems in the world (states not withstanding)... Consequently when we elect a bunch of moralizing faux-christian fascists, it's because that's what we really want...
In other words, it's not just about who is in power, it's about the sort of society we want to live in... I despair for our children...
On Thu, 5 Dec 2019 at 00:33, Andrew McGlashan via luv-talk <luv-talk@luv.asn.au> wrote:
Hi,
On 5/12/19 12:16 am, Jason White via luv-talk wrote:
I've been living overseas in recent years for work reasons, so perhaps I shouldn't comment. However, I don't recall that the Australian Labor Party was particularly progressive regarding the rights of refugees - at least when I was last paying attention. Didn't they favour mandatory detention policies, and the exclusion of off-shore detention facilities from the migration zone?
If that's the case, then the issue lies with both sides of mainstream Australian politics, making it more complicated than the question of how far to the right the current government is. So far as I can remember, the Australian Greens have been consistently supportive of upholding the human rights of refugees.
Others are welcome to correct me if any of the above are false impressions, of course.
Labor has rolled over on many things; expecting to form government to fix some of them.
Labor had, in Hawke's time, more compassion for the people and their own very fair "green" agenda before the Greens party even existed -- there was no need for the Greens back then.
In any case, Labor is far too close to LNP in many issues, but you can't win elections (generally), if you keep wanting to take monies out of people's pockets, especially in this depressed economy. It's more give me, give me, give me and "what's in it for me" ... AU people have to look after themselves and do what they can to support causes they believe in if they have enough funds to do so after huge rises in cost of living here.
I'm pretty sure one of Keating's last policies helped get him booted, he wanted to increase the government take on capital gains -- sound familiar? Taking ANY monies from the people is a recipe for disaster in this greedy country that can see no further than the value of their dollars.
Of the two major parties, I believe Labor is far ahead of LNP, but they don't present well and there are too many supporters of LNP with very strong voices and loads of money for the cause.
Yeah, we are stuffed and two rights (LNP and Labor), doesn't make it "right", it just makes it sad.
A. _______________________________________________ luv-talk mailing list luv-talk@luv.asn.au https://lists.luv.asn.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/luv-talk
-- Dr Paul van den Bergen
_______________________________________________ luv-talk mailing list luv-talk@luv.asn.au https://lists.luv.asn.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/luv-talk
https://openborders.info/ On Thu, 5 Dec 2019 at 12:07, Peter Ross via luv-talk <luv-talk@luv.asn.au> wrote:
A bit of history:
A) When mandatory detention was introduced: "The Government is determined that a clear signal be sent that migration to Australia may not be achieved by simply arriving in this country and expecting to be allowed into the community ... this legislation is only intended to be an interim measure." (Immigration Minister Gerry Hand under Paul Keating 1993)?
B) Refugees throw children overboard to reach Australia (Minister for Defense Peter Reith under John Howard 2001)
C) "We will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come" (PM John Howard 2001)
D) "onshore processing encourages people to jump into boats" (Houston report under Julia Gillard 2012) leading to re-opening of offshore processing at Nauru and Manus Island
E) "From now on, any asylum seeker who arrives in Australia by boat will have no chance of being settled in Australia as refugees." (PM Kevin Rudd 2013)
F) "I do not comment on on-waters matters" (Minister for Immigration Scott Morrison under Tony Abbott 2014)
G) It prevents people from drowning and saves lifes (PM Tony Abbott and Opposition Leader Bill Shorten 2015)
H) “The Australian Government has zero tolerance for people smuggling" (PM Scott Morrision 2019)
I) "Every individual senator has to make a decision: whether they stand on the side of stronger national security or weaker national security." (Senator Cormann under Scott Morrison 2019)
Both parties, supported by 75-80% of all Australian voters, having positions and acting in a way only supported by the Far-Right in Germany. the AfD, a party with close connections and leaders associated with fascism and neo-Nazism.
I am living in a land that implemented anti-refugees policies German fascists and neo-Nazis dream of.
Good to be here.. Peter
On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 9:56 AM Paul van den Bergen via luv-talk <luv-talk@luv.asn.au> wrote:
Hey Folks,
My take on a lot of this is that Australia has one of the most
representative electoral systems in the world (states not withstanding)... Consequently when we elect a bunch of moralizing faux-christian fascists, it's because that's what we really want...
In other words, it's not just about who is in power, it's about the sort
of society we want to live in... I despair for our children...
On Thu, 5 Dec 2019 at 00:33, Andrew McGlashan via luv-talk <
luv-talk@luv.asn.au> wrote:
Hi,
On 5/12/19 12:16 am, Jason White via luv-talk wrote:
I've been living overseas in recent years for work reasons, so
perhaps I shouldn't comment. However, I don't recall that the Australian Labor Party was particularly progressive regarding the rights of refugees - at least when I was last paying attention. Didn't they favour mandatory detention policies, and the exclusion of off-shore detention facilities from the migration zone?
If that's the case, then the issue lies with both sides of mainstream
Australian politics, making it more complicated than the question of how far to the right the current government is. So far as I can remember, the Australian Greens have been consistently supportive of upholding the human rights of refugees.
Others are welcome to correct me if any of the above are false
impressions, of course.
Labor has rolled over on many things; expecting to form government to fix some of them.
Labor had, in Hawke's time, more compassion for the people and their own very fair "green" agenda before the Greens party even existed -- there was no need for the Greens back then.
In any case, Labor is far too close to LNP in many issues, but you can't win elections (generally), if you keep wanting to take monies out of people's pockets, especially in this depressed economy. It's more give me, give me, give me and "what's in it for me" ... AU people have to look after themselves and do what they can to support causes they believe in if they have enough funds to do so after huge rises in cost of living here.
I'm pretty sure one of Keating's last policies helped get him booted, he wanted to increase the government take on capital gains -- sound familiar? Taking ANY monies from the people is a recipe for disaster in this greedy country that can see no further than the value of their dollars.
Of the two major parties, I believe Labor is far ahead of LNP, but they don't present well and there are too many supporters of LNP with very strong voices and loads of money for the cause.
Yeah, we are stuffed and two rights (LNP and Labor), doesn't make it "right", it just makes it sad.
A. _______________________________________________ luv-talk mailing list luv-talk@luv.asn.au https://lists.luv.asn.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/luv-talk
-- Dr Paul van den Bergen
_______________________________________________ luv-talk mailing list luv-talk@luv.asn.au https://lists.luv.asn.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/luv-talk
luv-talk mailing list luv-talk@luv.asn.au https://lists.luv.asn.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/luv-talk
-- Dr Paul van den Bergen
Hi Paul, The idea that if you cannot help everyone you do not help at all? It is not the case that Australia's borders get overrun by big numbers of refugees - it is not that easy, obviously. However, I think it is right to say that we are perfectly capable of dealing with the number of refugees arriving at our door steps. Our current refugee policy does distinguish by arrival by boat vs. arrival by plane. Furthermore, Australia is one of the countries who have created the instability in the Middle East which have caused the refugee movements. In contrast, my former home country has not been part of the military adventures but have dealt with many more refugees. Angela Merkel's response 'Wir schaffen das" ("We can manage this") is a stark contrast to Australia's response. The Australian response over the years is infuriating, not only in the area of refugee policies. It is a convenient "We are so small, We can't do anything. We cannot deal with refugees, we cannot do much about climate change, and we do not want to spend on foreign aid either." Australians show the rest of the world that they are incapable - or simply do not want to take part in global efforts. Regards Peter On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 12:25 PM Paul van den Bergen <paul.vandenbergen@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 5 Dec 2019 at 12:07, Peter Ross via luv-talk <luv-talk@luv.asn.au> wrote:
A bit of history:
A) When mandatory detention was introduced: "The Government is determined that a clear signal be sent that migration to Australia may not be achieved by simply arriving in this country and expecting to be allowed into the community ... this legislation is only intended to be an interim measure." (Immigration Minister Gerry Hand under Paul Keating 1993)?
B) Refugees throw children overboard to reach Australia (Minister for Defense Peter Reith under John Howard 2001)
C) "We will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come" (PM John Howard 2001)
D) "onshore processing encourages people to jump into boats" (Houston report under Julia Gillard 2012) leading to re-opening of offshore processing at Nauru and Manus Island
E) "From now on, any asylum seeker who arrives in Australia by boat will have no chance of being settled in Australia as refugees." (PM Kevin Rudd 2013)
F) "I do not comment on on-waters matters" (Minister for Immigration Scott Morrison under Tony Abbott 2014)
G) It prevents people from drowning and saves lifes (PM Tony Abbott and Opposition Leader Bill Shorten 2015)
H) “The Australian Government has zero tolerance for people smuggling" (PM Scott Morrision 2019)
I) "Every individual senator has to make a decision: whether they stand on the side of stronger national security or weaker national security." (Senator Cormann under Scott Morrison 2019)
Both parties, supported by 75-80% of all Australian voters, having positions and acting in a way only supported by the Far-Right in Germany. the AfD, a party with close connections and leaders associated with fascism and neo-Nazism.
I am living in a land that implemented anti-refugees policies German fascists and neo-Nazis dream of.
Good to be here.. Peter
On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 9:56 AM Paul van den Bergen via luv-talk <luv-talk@luv.asn.au> wrote:
Hey Folks,
My take on a lot of this is that Australia has one of the most representative electoral systems in the world (states not withstanding)... Consequently when we elect a bunch of moralizing faux-christian fascists, it's because that's what we really want...
In other words, it's not just about who is in power, it's about the sort of society we want to live in... I despair for our children...
On Thu, 5 Dec 2019 at 00:33, Andrew McGlashan via luv-talk <luv-talk@luv.asn.au> wrote:
Hi,
On 5/12/19 12:16 am, Jason White via luv-talk wrote:
I've been living overseas in recent years for work reasons, so perhaps I shouldn't comment. However, I don't recall that the Australian Labor Party was particularly progressive regarding the rights of refugees - at least when I was last paying attention. Didn't they favour mandatory detention policies, and the exclusion of off-shore detention facilities from the migration zone?
If that's the case, then the issue lies with both sides of mainstream Australian politics, making it more complicated than the question of how far to the right the current government is. So far as I can remember, the Australian Greens have been consistently supportive of upholding the human rights of refugees.
Others are welcome to correct me if any of the above are false impressions, of course.
Labor has rolled over on many things; expecting to form government to fix some of them.
Labor had, in Hawke's time, more compassion for the people and their own very fair "green" agenda before the Greens party even existed -- there was no need for the Greens back then.
In any case, Labor is far too close to LNP in many issues, but you can't win elections (generally), if you keep wanting to take monies out of people's pockets, especially in this depressed economy. It's more give me, give me, give me and "what's in it for me" ... AU people have to look after themselves and do what they can to support causes they believe in if they have enough funds to do so after huge rises in cost of living here.
I'm pretty sure one of Keating's last policies helped get him booted, he wanted to increase the government take on capital gains -- sound familiar? Taking ANY monies from the people is a recipe for disaster in this greedy country that can see no further than the value of their dollars.
Of the two major parties, I believe Labor is far ahead of LNP, but they don't present well and there are too many supporters of LNP with very strong voices and loads of money for the cause.
Yeah, we are stuffed and two rights (LNP and Labor), doesn't make it "right", it just makes it sad.
A. _______________________________________________ luv-talk mailing list luv-talk@luv.asn.au https://lists.luv.asn.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/luv-talk
-- Dr Paul van den Bergen
_______________________________________________ luv-talk mailing list luv-talk@luv.asn.au https://lists.luv.asn.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/luv-talk
_______________________________________________ luv-talk mailing list luv-talk@luv.asn.au https://lists.luv.asn.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/luv-talk
-- Dr Paul van den Bergen
Absolutely. There are two things I like about Open Borders, beyond the right to migrate freely. The first and most important is that it forces you to adopt a humanist global mindset rather than a parochial nationalistic open - we are literally all in this together. The second is that free and open migration isn't really that big of a problem as it's made out - almost all migration is economic, at least in the sense that it is expensive to move, let alone risky. Only a relatively small fraction of people who'd want to can actually afford to. Everyone else is stuck where they are... To my mind it's rather hypocritical for the west to simultaneously strip mine the resources of the rest of teh world and simultaneously complain that people want to migrate here... On Thu, 5 Dec 2019 at 18:10, Peter Ross <petrosssit@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Paul,
The idea that if you cannot help everyone you do not help at all?
It is not the case that Australia's borders get overrun by big numbers of refugees - it is not that easy, obviously.
However, I think it is right to say that we are perfectly capable of dealing with the number of refugees arriving at our door steps.
Our current refugee policy does distinguish by arrival by boat vs. arrival by plane.
Furthermore, Australia is one of the countries who have created the instability in the Middle East which have caused the refugee movements.
In contrast, my former home country has not been part of the military adventures but have dealt with many more refugees.
Angela Merkel's response 'Wir schaffen das" ("We can manage this") is a stark contrast to Australia's response.
The Australian response over the years is infuriating, not only in the area of refugee policies. It is a convenient "We are so small, We can't do anything. We cannot deal with refugees, we cannot do much about climate change, and we do not want to spend on foreign aid either."
Australians show the rest of the world that they are incapable - or simply do not want to take part in global efforts.
Regards Peter
On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 12:25 PM Paul van den Bergen <paul.vandenbergen@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 5 Dec 2019 at 12:07, Peter Ross via luv-talk <
luv-talk@luv.asn.au> wrote:
A bit of history:
A) When mandatory detention was introduced: "The Government is determined that a clear signal be sent that migration to Australia may not be achieved by simply arriving in this country and expecting to be allowed into the community ... this legislation is only intended to be an interim measure." (Immigration Minister Gerry Hand
under
Paul Keating 1993)?
B) Refugees throw children overboard to reach Australia (Minister for Defense Peter Reith under John Howard 2001)
C) "We will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come" (PM John Howard 2001)
D) "onshore processing encourages people to jump into boats" (Houston report under Julia Gillard 2012) leading to re-opening of offshore processing at Nauru and Manus Island
E) "From now on, any asylum seeker who arrives in Australia by boat will have no chance of being settled in Australia as refugees." (PM Kevin Rudd 2013)
F) "I do not comment on on-waters matters" (Minister for Immigration Scott Morrison under Tony Abbott 2014)
G) It prevents people from drowning and saves lifes (PM Tony Abbott and Opposition Leader Bill Shorten 2015)
H) “The Australian Government has zero tolerance for people smuggling" (PM Scott Morrision 2019)
I) "Every individual senator has to make a decision: whether they stand on the side of stronger national security or weaker national security." (Senator Cormann under Scott Morrison 2019)
Both parties, supported by 75-80% of all Australian voters, having positions and acting in a way only supported by the Far-Right in Germany. the AfD, a party with close connections and leaders associated with fascism and neo-Nazism.
I am living in a land that implemented anti-refugees policies German fascists and neo-Nazis dream of.
Good to be here.. Peter
On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 9:56 AM Paul van den Bergen via luv-talk <luv-talk@luv.asn.au> wrote:
Hey Folks,
My take on a lot of this is that Australia has one of the most
representative electoral systems in the world (states not withstanding)... Consequently when we elect a bunch of moralizing faux-christian fascists, it's because that's what we really want...
In other words, it's not just about who is in power, it's about the
sort of society we want to live in... I despair for our children...
On Thu, 5 Dec 2019 at 00:33, Andrew McGlashan via luv-talk <
luv-talk@luv.asn.au> wrote:
Hi,
On 5/12/19 12:16 am, Jason White via luv-talk wrote:
I've been living overseas in recent years for work reasons, so
perhaps I shouldn't comment. However, I don't recall that the Australian Labor Party was particularly progressive regarding the rights of refugees - at least when I was last paying attention. Didn't they favour mandatory detention policies, and the exclusion of off-shore detention facilities from the migration zone?
If that's the case, then the issue lies with both sides of
mainstream Australian politics, making it more complicated than the question of how far to the right the current government is. So far as I can remember, the Australian Greens have been consistently supportive of upholding the human rights of refugees.
Others are welcome to correct me if any of the above are false
impressions, of course.
Labor has rolled over on many things; expecting to form government to fix some of them.
Labor had, in Hawke's time, more compassion for the people and their own very fair "green" agenda before the Greens party even existed -- there was no need for the Greens back then.
In any case, Labor is far too close to LNP in many issues, but you can't win elections (generally), if you keep wanting to take monies out of people's pockets, especially in this depressed economy. It's more give me, give me, give me and "what's in it for me" ... AU people have to look after themselves and do what they can to support causes they believe in if they have enough funds to do so after huge rises in cost of living here.
I'm pretty sure one of Keating's last policies helped get him booted, he wanted to increase the government take on capital gains -- sound familiar? Taking ANY monies from the people is a recipe for disaster in this greedy country that can see no further than the value of their dollars.
Of the two major parties, I believe Labor is far ahead of LNP, but they don't present well and there are too many supporters of LNP with very strong voices and loads of money for the cause.
Yeah, we are stuffed and two rights (LNP and Labor), doesn't make it "right", it just makes it sad.
A. _______________________________________________ luv-talk mailing list luv-talk@luv.asn.au https://lists.luv.asn.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/luv-talk
-- Dr Paul van den Bergen
_______________________________________________ luv-talk mailing list luv-talk@luv.asn.au https://lists.luv.asn.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/luv-talk
luv-talk mailing list luv-talk@luv.asn.au https://lists.luv.asn.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/luv-talk
-- Dr Paul van den Bergen
-- Dr Paul van den Bergen
Paul van den Bergen via luv-talk wrote:
There are two things I like about Open Borders, beyond the right to migrate freely.
The first and most important is that it forces you to adopt a humanist global mindset rather than a parochial nationalistic open - we are literally all in this together.
The second is that free and open migration isn't really that big of a problem as it's made out - almost all migration is economic, at least in the sense that it is expensive to move, let alone risky. Only a relatively small fraction of people who'd want to can actually afford to. Everyone else is stuck where they are...
Obligatory observation that when capital can move more easily than labour, capital can move to where wages are low, and labour can't move to where wages are high. i.e. freedom of movement indirectly counteracts wealth concentration. See e.g. Marx & Engels 1848, Piketty 2013. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependencies_by_t... re refugee admission into Australia, consider our sub-replacement total fertility rate (TFR) means we need refugees to avoid deflation (because shrinking population = shrinking economy). The Australian immigration policy has (basically since forever) been about letting in people that are ALREADY rich and/or skilled, on the basis that they'll be a net win for the economy. AIUI in the last 30 years or so, the rest of the anglosphere has said "what a swell idea, let's copy it". Probably the best argument against that is that it's only effective for one generation. i.e. if you take in a poor unskilled refugee, their kids are just as likely to become rich or skilled as anyone else in their class (because we have equality-of-opportunity, right? At least in theory.) (That last claim really needs some citations, but I'm too lazy to dig them out tonight, sorry.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependencies_by_t...
re refugee admission into Australia, consider our sub-replacement total fertility rate (TFR) means we need refugees to avoid deflation (because shrinking population = shrinking economy).
PS: I tried to back-of-the-envelope calculate how many people we need to take in to avoid population decline. Replacement TFR is 2.1 for developed nations. Australia's TFR is 1.8. So the shortfall is 0.3 babies per Australian woman's reproductive life. Menarch to menopause is about 13yo to 50yo, or 37 years. Australia's population is about 25M. I can't quickly work out how to find the area of the population pyramid, so let's just assume exactly 50% are female (12.5M). So by my reading, to avoid population decline (and thus economic deflation), we need to take in... (2.1 babies/woman's reproductive life - 1.8 babies/woman's reproductive life) × 12.5M Australian women ÷ 37 years reproductive life = 16M refugees or immigrants per generation = 440K refugees or immigrants per year Or if you prefer 16M refugees or immigrants per generation ÷ 25M australians = 0.65 refugees or immigrants per australian per generation In other words, every 3 Australians need to take in 2 refugees in their lifetime. (Which sounds about right if we look at our original 0.3/woman and double it to get 0.6/australian.)
On 5/12/19 9:55 am, Paul van den Bergen via luv-talk wrote:
My take on a lot of this is that Australia has one of the most representative electoral systems in the world (states not withstanding)
Australia doesn't have a very representative electoral system. Our lower house voting system results in a particularly unrepresentative parliament, as can be seen from the outcome of this year's election. Compare[1] the percentage of the vote each party received, with the number of seats that they won: Party | Seats | Share of | Vote | Seats | Won | Seats | Share | Warranted ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ALP | 69 | 45.39% | 33.34% | 50 Liberal/LNP | 67 | 44.08% | 36.66% | 55 Greens | 1 | 0.66% | 10.40% | 15 National | 10 | 6.58% | 4.51% | 6 UAP | 0 | 0.00% | 3.43% | 5 One Nation | 0 | 0.00% | 3.08% | 4 KAP | 1 | 0.66% | 0.49% | 0 Centre Alliance | 1 | 0.66% | 0.33% | 0 | | | | Other | 0 | 0.00% | 4.39% | 6 Independent | 3 | 1.97% | 3.37% | 5 I've added the Queensland Liberal/National Party to the Liberal vote, since they are a division of the Liberal Party. As can be seen, the Labor, Liberal and National parties receive considerably more seats than they should, based on their proportion of the vote, and The Greens, The UAP and One Nation are considerably under-represented. Combine this with a far stricter party discipline system than either the UK or the US have, and we get a democracy that really isn't serving its people well at all. Paul. [1] Apologies to anyone who isn't using fixed-size fonts to read email, that table will look particularly messy.
Paul Dwerryhouse via luv-talk wrote:
On 5/12/19 9:55 am, Paul van den Bergen via luv-talk wrote:
My take on a lot of this is that Australia has one of the most representative electoral systems in the world (states not withstanding)
Australia doesn't have a very representative electoral system. Our lower house voting system results in a particularly unrepresentative parliament,
I was going to comment on this, too, but couldn't be arsed. In particular, .de and .nz use MMP and that seems to Suck Less overall? Debian uses Condorcet which is obviously the most maximally sexy (of SINGLE-winner systems), but hard to explain to the Great Unwashed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_criterion#Instant-runoff_voting
Combine this with a far stricter party discipline system than either the UK or the US have, and we get a democracy that really isn't serving its people well at all.
Can you expand on this? It sounds like you're talking about "collective responsiblity" (as opposed to conscience votes). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabinet_collective_responsibility I thought Australia's version was pretty typical for the anglosphere.
On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 3:44 PM Trent W. Buck via luv-talk <luv-talk@luv.asn.au> wrote:
Can you expand on this? It sounds like you're talking about "collective responsiblity" (as opposed to conscience votes). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabinet_collective_responsibility I thought Australia's version was pretty typical for the anglosphere.
US, UK and AU have another thing in common: leaders who do not respect the parliament and claim to be above them. Trump has the swamp, Johnson a parliament which works against its people and Morrison the Canberra bubble. Yes, Germany's Far-Right AfD claims also to be "anti-elite" and believes the rest of the politicians are governing against their people's will. And yes, they know their predecessors very well, who came into power after an election with 30% of the votes, and after the parliament burned, they let the mask slip and became openly totalitarian. Medevac last week was a farce, ending up with a senator doing a deal or not, but we don't know because she claims to be gagged by national security concerns. The Australian parliament is now a bunker. Literally. And Australia as a whole is a fact-free zone. The similarities to German history are too many to feel happy here. Well, let it burn, let it burn.. Have a good weekend Peter On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 3:44 PM Trent W. Buck via luv-talk <luv-talk@luv.asn.au> wrote:
Paul Dwerryhouse via luv-talk wrote:
On 5/12/19 9:55 am, Paul van den Bergen via luv-talk wrote:
My take on a lot of this is that Australia has one of the most representative electoral systems in the world (states not withstanding)
Australia doesn't have a very representative electoral system. Our lower house voting system results in a particularly unrepresentative parliament,
I was going to comment on this, too, but couldn't be arsed. In particular, .de and .nz use MMP and that seems to Suck Less overall?
Debian uses Condorcet which is obviously the most maximally sexy (of SINGLE-winner systems), but hard to explain to the Great Unwashed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_criterion#Instant-runoff_voting
Combine this with a far stricter party discipline system than either the UK or the US have, and we get a democracy that really isn't serving its people well at all.
Can you expand on this? It sounds like you're talking about "collective responsiblity" (as opposed to conscience votes). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabinet_collective_responsibility I thought Australia's version was pretty typical for the anglosphere. _______________________________________________ luv-talk mailing list luv-talk@luv.asn.au https://lists.luv.asn.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/luv-talk
"German Chancellor Angela Merkel is visiting Auschwitz for the first time. She says she feels deep shame for the barbaric crimes that were commited here by Germans." Apologies for sending one more post. When migrating in Australia, I could not imagine the state of the Anglo-Saxon world of today. Maybe, we will later talk about 9/11 as the Anglo-Saxon Reichstagsbrand, comparable to the burning of the German parliament in 1933. Since 9/11 US, UK and AU have been on war, directly in the Middle East, but also at home, where the 'war on terror" lead to more and more xenophobic tendencies fueling a dismantling of democracy, all under the pretense of "national security". This country and its leaders feel completely lunatic, irrational and inhumane. Regards Peter
On 6/12/19 3:43 pm, Trent W. Buck wrote:
Paul Dwerryhouse via luv-talk wrote:
Combine this with a far stricter party discipline system than either the UK or the US have, and we get a democracy that really isn't serving its people well at all.
Can you expand on this?
US and UK politicians cross the floor to vote against their party's wishes regularly. In Australia, the ALP will kick members out of the party if they cross the floor (excluding "conscience votes"). The Liberals claim to allow their MPs to vote freely, but over the last decade, members who have threatened to do so have been harassed. Either way, it's incredibly rare for it to happen here. Cheers, Paul
On 2019-12-07 01:39, Paul Dwerryhouse via luv-talk wrote:
US and UK politicians cross the floor to vote against their party's wishes regularly.
In Australia, the ALP will kick members out of the party if they cross the floor ...
Not quite. The UK is much closer to AU than US in this respect. It is fairly rare for Commons members to vote against their party and it can (and does!) result in the whip being withdrawn. This is normal in the Westminster system. The US is modelled on the French system where the executive is formed *outside* the legislature and that is why all votes are essentially "conscience votes". /Anders
Anders Holmström via luv-talk wrote:
On 2019-12-07 01:39, Paul Dwerryhouse via luv-talk wrote:
US and UK politicians cross the floor to vote against their party's wishes regularly.
In Australia, the ALP will kick members out of the party if they cross the floor ...
Not quite. The UK is much closer to AU than US in this respect. It is fairly rare for Commons members to vote against their party and it can (and does!) result in the whip being withdrawn. This is normal in the Westminster system.
The US is modelled on the French system where the executive is formed *outside* the legislature and that is why all votes are essentially "conscience votes".
Minor nitpick, note that we have the "washminster mutation", viz. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westminster_system#'Washminster'_system_of_Australia
On 2019-12-07 10:26, Trent W. Buck wrote:
Minor nitpick, note that we have the "washminster mutation", viz. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westminster_system#'Washminster'_system_of_Australia
Not that big a mutation. The only essential difference is the upper house has a veto. And in the AU senate we have what is possibly the least representative elected body in the world: where else does one region have 15 times greater representation than another? The primary difference is still the separation of legislature and executive, a good thing in principle (you can argue about the implementation). /A
Quoting Anders Holmstr??m (anders.sputnik@gmail.com):
The US is modelled on the French system where the executive is formed *outside* the legislature and that is why all votes are essentially "conscience votes".
Correct. Political parties are actually not recognised in the US Federal foundational and operational documents, because, oddly enough, the Founding Fathers were taken by surprise by their rise as an emergent effect of government structure.[1] Anyway, the parties have ultimately no control over a sitting member of Congress (for example), except the indirect influence they have as the source of a certain amount of fundraising helpful for re-election, albeit there are often maverick candidates who dispense with that financial backing and declare themselves a $FOO party candidate irrespective of whether the party's central committee likes or loathes them. (The point is that the party has zero power to decree who may run as a $FOO-affiliated candidate -- for the reason cited below.) Unlike in the Westminster system, neither politicians nor voters have party membership, and neither apply for membership nor pay membership fees, hence also cannot be expelled. Occasional members of Congress decide they don't like the cut of the jib of either of the dominant parties, and declare themselves 'independent'. Currently, ISTR three Senators are such, and choose to caucus with the Democratic Party Senators. [1] E.g., Duverger's Law, http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/lexicon.html#duverger . -- Cheers, "Maybe the law ain’t perfect, but it’s the only Rick Moen one we got, and without it we got nuthin'." rick@linuxmafia.com -- U.S. Deputy Marshal Bass Reeves, circa 1875 McQ! (4x80)
Just a fun fact from this week: The Department of Communication and Arts was merged with others, and now we have a Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications. No Arts, as we did not have Science under Abbott. I see the logic: The Liberals do not believe in science, and who can ever think of them being interested in Arts? Cool guys. The biggest town in the county is for two week covered with smog, and the PM coming from that town is busy cutting public service to "bust bureaucratic congestion". Cheers Peter
On Sun, 8 Dec 2019 at 22:44, Peter Ross via luv-talk <luv-talk@luv.asn.au> wrote:
Just a fun fact from this week:
Ok, if we are doing fun facts, I have a fun movie which is on-topic ... Readers of this thread might be interested in a 16minute preview of a new independent film that is currently in production. In it, the following people (who I hope would be considered by a true conservative politician to be reputable voices) share their views on the current climate emergency. IAN DUNLOP, Former Chair, Australian Coal Association, Industry Risk Analyst SHERRI GOODMAN, Frmr. Dep. Undersecretary of Defense, EEM Security (USA), Public Policy Fellow, Wilson Center CHRIS BARRIE, Former Chief, Australian Defence Force JOHN HEWSON, Former Leader, Liberal Party of Australia JOHN BLACKBURN, Former Deputy Chief, Royal Australian Air Force MICHAEL THOMAS, Retired Major, Australian Army REV. TIM COSTELLO, Chief Advocate, World Vision Australia PAUL GILDING, Business & Industry Strategist HUGH HUNT, Professor of Engineering, Cambridge University The film preview is watchable with a Javascript enabled browser at: https://www.homefront.site/ It contains some powerful messages that are not being emphasised elsewhere. I recommend watching it and sharing it with your loved ones and acquaintances. Because time is running out for all of us.
On 9/12/19 11:30 am, David via luv-talk wrote:
JOHN HEWSON, Former Leader, Liberal Party of Australia
If it was possible to get John Hewson back in to play as the LNP leader today; we /might/ have a good leader, but he would have to work miracles on all the other terribly rotten apples that he would have to work with. A.
Paul Dwerryhouse via luv-talk wrote:
On 6/12/19 3:43 pm, Trent W. Buck wrote:
Paul Dwerryhouse via luv-talk wrote:
Combine this with a far stricter party discipline system than either the UK or the US have, and we get a democracy that really isn't serving its people well at all.
Can you expand on this?
US and UK politicians cross the floor to vote against their party's wishes regularly.
Are you sure about that? I had a quick look and all I can find for the UK is conscience votes in 1976 (join the EEC?) and 2016 (leave the EU?). It does say "cabinet", though, so maybe that doesn't apply to backbenchers? Like, if this was the UK, when Abbott was booted out of cabinet and had no portfolio (i.e. he was an MP but not a minister), he'd be allowed to publicly criticize (and vote against) core party policies, without being kicked out of the party?
In Australia, the ALP will kick members out of the party if they cross the floor (excluding "conscience votes"). The Liberals claim to allow their MPs to vote freely, but over the last decade, members who have threatened to do so have been harassed.
Either way, it's incredibly rare for it to happen here.
Yeah, agreed. I'm not saying it's common here. I'm saying (I think) it's equally rare elsewhere in the anglosphere. https://www.parliament.nz/en/get-involved/features-pre-2016/document/00NZPHo... The New Zealand Parliament has a long history of MPs casting their votes along party lines. [...] Issues that have been treated as conscience issues include liquor licensing and gambling. [...] https://www.aspg.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/15-McKeown.pdf Since 1996 five bills have attracted a conscience vote. <got bored before I found a good citation for Harper/Trudeau> OK, here is a good cite agreeing with your claim that party voting is worse (more common) in Australia: https://www.psa.ac.uk/sites/default/files/conference/papers/2014/Marriage%20... Kam compared backbench dissent in four Westminster parliamentary systems during the post-war period and found that Australian MPs’ were the least likely to rebel against their party (Kam, 2009, p.8). Nevertheless, UK studies have revealed that even in free vote circumstances political party remains the best predictor of voting patterns and thus, conclude that more holds British political parties together than the whips. Based on a footnote in that, it seems I should be looking for "list of free votes" (or "unwhipped votes") rather than "list of conscience votes", since that term is apparently Australocentric.
Quoting Trent W. Buck (trentbuck@gmail.com):
Are you sure about that?
I had a quick look and all I can find for the UK is conscience votes in 1976 (join the EEC?) and 2016 (leave the EU?).
It does say "cabinet", though, so maybe that doesn't apply to backbenchers?
To the best of my recollection, it's almost vanishingly rare for _any_ member of the Commons. Note that, when 21 Tory MPs failed to back BoJo on one of his very controversial Brexit votes[0], they were literally thrown out of the (increasingly ironically named) Conservative and Unionist Party, and half of those[1] currently face very daunting if not prohibitive electoral prospects in the impending snap election for the Westminster Parliament, because they cannot stand as Conservative candidates. It's rare enough that one of the characters in G&S's 'Iolanthe' (Private Willis, singing while on sentry duty in Palace Yard outside Westminster Hall) acidly observes about MPs: When in that House MPs divide, If they’ve a brain and cerebellum, too, They’ve got to leave that brain outside, And vote just as their leaders tell 'em to. [0] Including Sir Nicholas Soames, Winston Churchill's grandson. https://abcnews.go.com/International/churchills-grandson-20-mps-expelled-con... Sir Nicholas decided based in part on October's events that he will not run again. [1] Ten of the 21 were quietly readmitted at the end of October. https://www.forexlive.com/news/!/10-of-21-expelled-tories-have-been-readmitt... -- Cheers, "Maybe the law ain’t perfect, but it’s the only Rick Moen one we got, and without it we got nuthin'." rick@linuxmafia.com -- U.S. Deputy Marshal Bass Reeves, circa 1875 McQ! (4x80)
Hi, On 7/12/19 11:39 am, Paul Dwerryhouse via luv-talk wrote:
On 6/12/19 3:43 pm, Trent W. Buck wrote:
Paul Dwerryhouse via luv-talk wrote:
Combine this with a far stricter party discipline system than either the UK or the US have, and we get a democracy that really isn't serving its people well at all.
Can you expand on this?
US and UK politicians cross the floor to vote against their party's wishes regularly.
In Australia, the ALP will kick members out of the party if they cross the floor (excluding "conscience votes"). The Liberals claim to allow their MPs to vote freely, but over the last decade, members who have threatened to do so have been harassed.
A serious problem with politics in AU is that you don't get in unless you are well sponsored by the party and then you are expected to tow the party line as a measure of "appreciation" for becoming a member of the political class -- you enjoy those massive benefits and privileges due to your association with the party, so even if you wish to go in being very fair minded, you actually go in being very obligated to the political party rather than the AU people that you should be serving. We need 100% independent politicians, no parties; everything that is important to vote on should be with conscience, EVERY TIME. The next problem, with the S44 issues, why are there so few "real" Australian's in our parliament? Is it just another job that no Aussie wants? It's easy for "new" Australians to decide how badly we "owe" our country to the "original or first" Australians... so much so, that non-racist people are becoming racist. I say that every single person born in AU should be 100% equal, none of this "first people" rubbish, every single one of the Aboriginal people alive today has been born in "modern" times ... and for better or worse, we need equity, but we do not need reverse discrimination. Every single Aussie, including Aboriginals, should share exactly the same rights and privileges as Aussies and in those areas where any part of the AU population needs some equitable adjustment, it should be done as fairly as possible. If Aboriginals have a shorter life span, it could easily be due to their own lifestyle choices and where it is not that simple, then money should be spent to improve that situation. A.
participants (8)
-
Anders Holmström -
Andrew McGlashan -
David -
Paul Dwerryhouse -
Paul van den Bergen -
Peter Ross -
Rick Moen -
Trent W. Buck