5 Dec
2019
5 Dec
'19
12:32 a.m.
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.
5 Dec
5 Dec
9:55 a.m.
New subject: Australia is governed by a party with extremist right-wing views
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(a)luv.asn.au> wrote:
Hi,
On 5/12/19 12:16 am, Jason White via luv-talk wrote:
--
Dr Paul van den Bergen
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(a)luv.asn.au
https://lists.luv.asn.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/luv-talk
12:06 p.m.
New subject: Australia is governed by a party with extremist right-wing views
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(a)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(a)luv.asn.au>
wrote:
Hi,
On 5/12/19 12:16 am, Jason White via luv-talk wrote:
--
Dr Paul van den Bergen
_______________________________________________
luv-talk mailing list
luv-talk(a)luv.asn.au
https://lists.luv.asn.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/luv-talk 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(a)luv.asn.au
https://lists.luv.asn.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/luv-talk
12:25 p.m.
New subject: Australia is governed by a party with extremist right-wing views
https://openborders.info/
On Thu, 5 Dec 2019 at 12:07, Peter Ross via luv-talk <luv-talk(a)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(a)luv.asn.au> wrote:
_______________________________________________
luv-talk mailing list
luv-talk(a)luv.asn.au
https://lists.luv.asn.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/luv-talk
--
Dr Paul van den Bergen
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(a)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(a)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(a)luv.asn.au
https://lists.luv.asn.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/luv-talk
6:10 p.m.
New subject: Australia is governed by a party with extremist right-wing views
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(a)gmail.com> wrote:
https://openborders.info/
On Thu, 5 Dec 2019 at 12:07, Peter Ross via luv-talk <luv-talk(a)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(a)luv.asn.au> wrote:
--
Dr Paul van den Bergen
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(a)luv.asn.au>
wrote:
_______________________________________________
luv-talk mailing list
luv-talk(a)luv.asn.au
https://lists.luv.asn.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/luv-talk
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(a)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(a)luv.asn.au
https://lists.luv.asn.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/luv-talk
7:27 p.m.
New subject: Australia is governed by a party with extremist right-wing views
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(a)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(a)gmail.com> wrote:
--
Dr Paul van den Bergen
--
Dr Paul van den Bergen
https://openborders.info/
On Thu, 5 Dec 2019 at 12:07, Peter Ross via luv-talk <
luv-talk(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)luv.asn.au
https://lists.luv.asn.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/luv-talk
_______________________________________________
luv-talk mailing list
luv-talk(a)luv.asn.au
https://lists.luv.asn.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/luv-talk 
6 Dec
6 Dec
1:45 a.m.
New subject: Australia is governed by a party with extremist right-wing views
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_…
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.)
2:15 a.m.
New subject: Australia is governed by a party with extremist right-wing views
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependencies_by_…
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.)
9:31 a.m.
New subject: Australia is governed by a party with extremist right-wing views
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.
3:43 p.m.
New subject: Australia is governed by a party with extremist right-wing views
Paul Dwerryhouse via luv-talk wrote:
On 5/12/19 9:55 am, Paul van den Bergen via luv-talk
wrote:
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
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, 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.
7 Dec
7 Dec
10:49 a.m.
New subject: Australia is governed by a party with extremist right-wing views
On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 3:44 PM Trent W. Buck via luv-talk
<luv-talk(a)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(a)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(a)luv.asn.au
> https://lists.luv.asn.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/luv-talk
11:08 a.m.
New subject: Australia is governed by a party with extremist right-wing views
"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
11:39 a.m.
New subject: Australia is governed by a party with extremist right-wing views
On 6/12/19 3:43 pm, Trent W. Buck 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 (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
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? 
7:30 p.m.
New subject: Australia is governed by a party with extremist right-wing views
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
8:26 p.m.
New subject: Australia is governed by a party with extremist right-wing views
Anders Holmström via luv-talk wrote:
On 2019-12-07 01:39, Paul Dwerryhouse via luv-talk
wrote:
Minor nitpick, note that we have the "washminster mutation", viz.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westminster_system#'Washminster'_syst…
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".
8:40 p.m.
New subject: Australia is governed by a party with extremist right-wing views
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'_syst…
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
8 Dec
8 Dec
12:56 p.m.
New subject: Australia is governed by a party with extremist right-wing views
Quoting Anders Holmstr??m (anders.sputnik(a)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(a)linuxmafia.com -- U.S. Deputy Marshal Bass Reeves, circa 1875
McQ! (4x80)
10:44 p.m.
New subject: Australia is governed by a party with extremist right-wing views
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
9 Dec
9 Dec
11:30 a.m.
New subject: Australia is governed by a party with extremist right-wing views
On Sun, 8 Dec 2019 at 22:44, Peter Ross via luv-talk
<luv-talk(a)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.
12:08 p.m.
New subject: Australia is governed by a party with extremist right-wing views
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.
7 Dec
7 Dec
8:22 p.m.
New subject: Australia is governed by a party with extremist right-wing views
Paul Dwerryhouse via luv-talk wrote:
On 6/12/19 3:43 pm, Trent W. Buck wrote:
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?
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? 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/00NZPH…
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%2…
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.
8 Dec
8 Dec
12:45 p.m.
New subject: Australia is governed by a party with extremist right-wing views
Quoting Trent W. Buck (trentbuck(a)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-co…
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-readmit…
--
Cheers, "Maybe the law ain’t perfect, but it’s the only
Rick Moen one we got, and without it we got nuthin'."
rick(a)linuxmafia.com -- U.S. Deputy Marshal Bass Reeves, circa 1875
McQ! (4x80)
7 Dec
7 Dec
9:18 p.m.
New subject: Australia is governed by a party with extremist right-wing views
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:
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.
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?
1208
days inactive
1213
days old
22 comments
8 participants
participants (8)
-
Anders Holmström -
Andrew McGlashan -
David -
Paul Dwerryhouse -
Paul van den Bergen -
Peter Ross -
Rick Moen -
Trent W. Buck