Light holiday reading:
• “Carlton’s lone classical liberal”, Andrew Norton, weighs in on Liberal hyperbole over third party political campaigns. New Mayo MP Jamie Briggs reckons these to be a “cancer in our democracy” due to the efforts of GetUp! and the ACTU at the last election. Briggs argues that “Australians are entitled to know who is behind the campaigns, how much is being spent and where the money is coming from”, evidently having failed to notice that such groups are indeed required to provide annual disclosure of receipts, expenditure and debts. However, in an interesting discussion at Larvatus Prodeo, Norton also argues that lowering the donation disclosure threshold from $10,000 to $1000 (as proposed by a bill currently before a Senate committee due to report on June 30) could theoretically catch independent political blogs in a “massive compliance net” thanks to a loose definition of “persons or organisations expressing views by any means on candidates or election issues”. Elsewhere, The Australian’s Janet Albrechtsen tugs at the heart strings by complaining the disclosure amendments are designed to cut donations to the Liberal Party (from which you can readily infer why the Howard government used its Senate majority to jack the threshold up from $1500 to $10,000 in the first place). More substantially, she argues that “the nature of third-party campaigns in Australia is such that if we ban or cap donations (except by individuals) and allow third-party campaigns by unions to continue unabated, the political field is skewed against one side: the conservatives” – particularly in light of government plans to scrap tax deductibility of party donations while maintaining it for union dues and levies.
• “Dotcom millionaire” Evan Thornley has made himself popular in Labor circles by pulling the plug on his political career on the eve of his anticipated promotion to the Victorian state cabinet. The talk around Thornley was that he viewed his state political career as a stepping stone to federal politics via Simon Crean’s seat of Hotham, beyond which his ambitions were apparently without limit. His entirely unheralded decision to “pursue opportunities outside of political life” has inevitably fuelled all manner of speculation, most of it involving his financial wellbeing. It has also created a vacancy for his upper house seat for the Southern Metropolitan region. The Age reports that the new upper house system instituted at the last election “has created an anomaly for Labor, as party rules do not specify how preselection for an upper house vacancy should be conducted”:
Party sources said the anomoly was expected to be tackled by rule makers in May 2009 before preselections began in earnest for the 2010 election. But Mr Thornley’s shock departure – which sources from both major factions of Victorian Labor described as the most bizarre incident they had ever witnessed in politics – could force the anomaly to be dealt with sooner. While some within Labor believe the rules offer no guidance over preselection, others say the spirit of preselection processes in the lower house should also be adopted for the upper house. Under that scenario, Mr Thornley’s replacement in the Southern Metropolitan electorate would be decided 50:50 by a ballot of ALP branch members and a central selection panel. Many expect Labor’s national executive to ultimately choose his replacement but all agreed it was too early to speculate on the names of likely candidates.
A commenter at Andrew Landeryou’s VexNews writes:
The Left were promised Thornley’s spot but they agreed not to insist as Thornley was then non aligned. Thornley then joined Labor Unity. They left will claim they are entitled to fill Thornley’s vacancy. Labor Unity will most likely want it and there will be an internal facional brawl like Kororoit. Then Mr Dearricott’s non-aligned group will claim their right to the vacancy. A strong tip tonight is that (former Brimbank mayor) Natalie Suleyman is a favourite for the position.
Another hopeful is said to be Dick Gross, former Municipal Association of Victoria president and Port Phillip councillor defeated in recent elections in a “resident revolt over his support for the St Kilda triangle development”. There is also the question of the political future of Theo Theophanous, charged on Christmas Eve with rape. An end to Theophanous’s political career would create another upper house vacancy in Northern Metropolitan. In lieu of Evan Thornley, Theophanous’s position as Industry and Trade Minister has been filled by Martin Pakula, previously best known for his failed preselection bid against Simon Crean in Hotham ahead of the last federal election.
• Michelle Grattan of The Age reports that the Victorian Liberals are “set to reluctantly give the Nationals the number two spot on a joint Senate ticket for the 2010 election”. This would continue an agreement initiated after the 1987 double dissolution election giving the Nationals the unwinnable fourth and safe second seats at alternating elections. The party’s seat in the Senate has been held since 1993 by Julian McGauran, who quit the party for the Liberals in January 2006. One possible explanation for the move was that he did not expect the Liberals would continue with the existing joint ticket arrangement, which as Grattan explains is widely opposed within the party. It had long been thought that the Nationals had been able to negotiate the joint ticket partly because the McGauran family helped delivered it preferences from the Democratic Labor Party, whom they had assisted in legal action to prevent its deregistration. The Nationals’ apparent success in keeping the arrangement going might suggest otherwise. However, another possibility is that McGauran thought his prospects of winning Liberal preselection less unlikely than those of keeping his place with the Nationals. McGauran had an uncomfortably narrow preselection win ahead of the 2004 election over Darren Chester, now the member for Gippsland, and his family’s clout might have been further weakened since by brother Peter’s departure from politics.
• Labor’s Mark Dreyfus, chairman of the House of Representatives Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, says he hopes the government will “soon” announce a non-binding plebiscite to test opinion on a republic before the federal election.
• Robert Taylor of The West Australian has an interesting overview of the new entrants to the WA state parliament.
UPDATE (3/1/09): Malcolm Mackerras reviews the Queensland state redistribution and offers his prediction for the election to be held some time this year, namely an 11 seat Labor majority from an even split on two-party preferred.
619 Comments
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 13 » Show All
Sorry Glen. The last para wasn’t directed at anyone in particular.
Australian politics at the moment is BORING. I say bring on the division issues and let it all hang out. Who is afraid of Virginia Wolf?
I think Australian politics at the moment is rather fascinating. Rudd, like others around the world, are swinging somewhat back to Keynesian economics. Why I find it fascinating in Australia is that Labor was quite economically socialist until Whitlam who moved somewhat to the right, then even further to the right under Hawke/Keating, but has actually drifted back a little under Rudd.
Who’d have thought!
Though admittedly it is quite hard to be more of an economic rationalist than Paul Keating, the one who originally proposed a GST.
The government rules out bringing in anyone from Gitmo so Brandis now says that it is worrying that the government even considered it? Is this bloke for real?
I wonder whether the budget is already in deficit?
Glen “Ron the simple matter of the fact is that Palestine would have been in its 61st year of nationhood had they accepted the 1948 partition”
Glen , they were offerred a partition to divide existing arab land to create a new new non arab country , but in any event whatever is th past is now irrelevant so lets forget 1948 , and it does not make th current status right at all …either in bombing dense civilian Gaza areas or Israel remaining in ocupation despite UN resolitions to withdraw
Australian govts and now Rudd , & other Western govts FA hav also restled with Israeli repeated flouting of UN resolutions , and no doubt trying to influense USA to be even handed and to ignore th US j.wish lobby….ie create a contigous 1967 borders Palestine country and a US backed secured Isreael But as said I’m not convinced at all Israel wants anyting other than retaining th non israeli land it now holds Th fear of criticising Israel for such blatant bombing atrocitiies extends to almost every Western Media outlet in World…there is also a message there
So Glen, which is more important protecting jobs or keeping the budget in surplus?
My one and only comment on the middle east!
The West Bank, Gaza and Isreal should be declared countries in accordance with the 1948 boundaries, Juralesm should be made an internation city with a split council with four seats for the Jews, four for the Muslims and four for the Christans.
All sides should be told to behave and any one who plays up will face the full force of the International community.
This whole situation has gone on llong enough and really at some poijnt grown ups need to grow up! yes I understand some people were displaced and in an ideal world that would never happen and in an ideal world we all would have everything we want when we want it!
On this occasion Hamas broke the ceasefire but the response has been agressive and excessive, the first side that says enough is enough is the side that will have the moral high ground but in this conflict I don’t see a successful outcome anytime soon.
I wouldn’t pay attention to the polls in Queensland until the ALP hand down their next budget. People aren’t paying attention yet.
“Which is why it is a quote from a popular TV show called the Simpsons it was a joke Gary…”
S U R E it was Glen
Both are important and both can be done at the same time…i guess that’s too hard for a Labor Government but hey…
Ooh William, that is hard. Here goes…
Does Israel face a strength paradox, and, if so, does it matter? Ultimately, as with the Indigenous experience in Australia, is might simply right?
The stronger a country is, and the more it applies its strength to gain its objectives, the weaker its friends are. Current examples:
1. Turkey has drawn back from supporting the negotiations between Israel and Syria.
2. Abbas has been weakened.
3. Mubarak has been weakened.
4. Moderate arabs everywhere have been weakened.
Does it matter? Is it simply more important to be strong and to apply the strength against your enemies, regardless of what friends (or the rest of the world) think? That is to say, friends, and hand-wringing people such as ourselves who merely exhort and expostulate but who are fundamentally irrelevant?
BTW, whatever the merits of the US ‘Jewish lobby’ notion, the real strength of Israel in terms of influence on US foreign policy lies with several tens of millions of fundamentalist Christian voters who support hard-line Israeli right positions.
The thing that would really intrigue me if I were an Israeli policy maker would be how to take time into consideration when developing strategic responses. The basic question is this: ‘Short of returning land, will there ever be a way of persuading enough Palestinians to accept a peaceful status quo?’ If there is not, then basically the premise would be that Israel will remain more powerful forever. A difficult timeline to consider.
Ron,
Have you been reading the John Marsden series “Tomorrow, when the war began”? In this 7 book series for teenagers, Australia is invaded by an unnamed country from the north. USA goes all neutral, and only NZ continues to fight on Australia’s behalf. In the end, Australia surrenders any real sovereignty, and land is confiscated and carved up to accommodate large numbers settlers from the invading country. Only a handful of rebels keep fighting, most of the population surrenders quickly. Obviously Marsden doesn’t think Australians have the courage of the Palestinians.
Glen & Centre – I’m not a big fan, but isn’t “The Simpsons” meant to be satire?
111 – Glen, I thought you would say that. Now could you detail how that can be done?
Ask Peter Costello…he managed to do both for 11.5 years…
In very good world economic times Glen. Totally different situation and you know it. Come on, if it is so easy to do tell us all how to go about it.
You are all talk and no action, just like your party.
I think I have your next answer worked out too Glen. How about, “We’re not the government”.
Im no economist but how about cut spending and have a more flexible IR system is the only ways i can see of minimising the impacts but what do i know im a pollbludger not a professor of economics…
What if we are still in surplus? Don’t be surprised.
polyquats, yes it is satire. Everyone has a favourite Simpsons episode. I liked when Homer started to do jogging. He got as far as Flanders’ house before nearly passing out. Or when Homer was being tortured by the devil by eating doughnuts. When the devil finished, Homer still wanted more.
polyquats
#113
“Ron,
Have you been reading the John Marsden series “Tomorrow, when the war began”? In this 7 book series for teenagers, Australia is invaded by an unnamed country from the north. USA goes all neutral, … Only a handful of rebels keep fighting, most of the population surrenders quickly. Obviously Marsden doesn’t think Australians have the courage of the Palestinians.”
Perhaps polyquats , I should write an 8th book to th 7 book series….Aussie guerillas , never surrender An invader relies on total control , a guerilla resistanse however small can easily disrupt that control if prepared to die
Interesting about courage , one Hamas leader Nizar Rayan’s house yaterday got blown to zero by many missiles & were intended for his house….Israeli intell wuld hav KNOWN in his own home had to be his 4 wives and 10 kids , where th hell else would they be …all 14 also died , plus 2 neighbours visiting An example of ‘trying” to avoid killing inocent civilians i tink not Yet TV footage does not show defeat in there faces , but defiant ‘anger’ ….deliberate “collateral damage” killing of Palestinien woman and kids is not only disgracful but guarantees ‘a never surrender’ population What worries me is I feel th Israeli’s know they cann’t win but don’t need to , and yes poly courage , but without justise
Wonder whethr people hav looked at why Israeli settlements got built in Arab land , hardly for israel’s “defense” ! But wonder if people hav seen Israeli cabinet’s conditions added after th Peace Road Map plan of US , EU , UN & Russia had been fairly determined …which neutred that Roadmap & a planned Palestinien State , again an example of why th settlements on non Israeli land ar a hint
so back to your writer Marden , well I’d be in th hills & being an Aussie and an alleged possible christian , th world would say I’m a freedom fighter , th brave underground resistance…but if i’m a Muslim in an Arab land fighting an invader i’d be called a terorist , an insurgant ….UN says 50 Palestinien kids hav died from th bombing since last Saturday , but then Bush still goes to Church every Sunday , amazing
Me too Centre…
Demonic Torturer: So, you like donuts, eh?
Homer Simpson: Um-hmm.
Demonic Torturer: Well, have all the donuts in the world!
Homer Simpson: More!
Demonic Torturer: I don’t understand it. James Coco went mad in fifteen minutes!
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0701279/quotes
The WHOLE Gitmo story, finally. The Government REJECTED Bush’s earlier approach for settlement, and has now REJECTED the second approach
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/01/03/2458564.htm?section=justin
I know I shouldn’t do this, but … Ron, have you stopped to consider even for one second what kind of a person uses his four wives and ten children as human shields?
For those interested in the middle east issue, I highly recommend the book Exile by Richard North Patterson. Besides being an excellent fictional thriller, it gives I think a pretty even-handed view of the confict and how insurmountable it seems…
Re: 121. Of course Turnbull and the OO are going to claim this as their victory
Abraham Rabinovich in The Australian:
This is addressed to everyone in general, and Ron in particular, as he has made repeated assertions that Israel are illegally occupying land in contravention of (purported but unquoted) UN resolutions.
I do not agree with those assertions. UN resolution 242 called for the “Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area…(and called) on Israel’s neighbours to end the state of belligerency and (called) upon Israel to reciprocate by withdraw its forces from land claimed by other parties in (the) 1967 war.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Nations_resolutions_concerning_Israel
The pertinent point is that Israel was called upon to withdraw, not unconditionally, but as reciprocation for their neighbours ending their belligerence. Clearly neither the ‘Palestinians’ nor Syria have yet complied with this resolution and Hamas still proclaims its goal of ending the existence of the state of Israel.
In contrast, Egypt reached an accommodation with Israel in 1979, and Israel responded appropriately by withdrawing from the Sinai. Egypt have acted responsibly since then, and not allowed their sovereign territory to be used to attack Israel. Therefore, Israel has had no occasion to attack Egypt, and have not done so.
Compare that (and also the relationship between Israel and the responsible government of Jordan, who expelled terrorist extremists from its territory in 1970/71) with the ‘relationship’ between Israel and Hamas. I think that it is obvious that ‘peace’ however defined, does not exist in the later case and is unlikely to for the foreseeable future, due to the stated intent and repeated belligerent actions of Hamas.
I declare my full support for Israel to take whatever action is necessary to defend their citizens from repeated attacks by Hamas. Israel have in fact committed no war crimes, nor, in my view, any other action worthy of condemnation in defending themselves. That is not to say that I am comfortable, let alone happy, with the loss of life in Gaza, but the responsibility for that resides entirely with the cowards who continue to attack Israel and place their infrastructure in dense civilian areas, instead of using their resources to improve the lot of the ‘Palestinian’ people.
“William I know I shouldn’t do this, but … Ron, have you stopped to consider even for one second what kind of a person uses his four wives and ten children as human shields?”
Have you stopped to consider even for one second what kind of Israeli persons would plan and execute th bombing of a persons own HOME knowing his four wives and ten children ar living there
ie th Israeli person(s) who planned and executed th bombing ABSOLUTELY KNEW th 4 wives and 10 kids would be killed ……whereas its only conjecture whether th father knew or not that his house and his 10 kids would be blown up
And I would not be relying on israeli Media ’spin’ of alleged forwarnings
I’m condemning th premediated fact of bommbing knowing who lived there ….not conjectur on th dead victums mind thoughts
Re the post from William Bowe at 122…. Yep, the same ‘leader’ and ‘family man’ whom you referred to, also apparently had (past tense) an elder son whom he encouraged to become a suicide bomber. Nice.
It amazes me that some contributers to this site have stated that they think that Hamas should have access to the equivilant weaponry to Isreal, and that they would consider donating to them (Hamas). I consider Hamas to be about on a par with Robert Mugabe.
Let’s just say for the sake of argument that it’s true. Is there anything you’ve said that you would revise? More broadly, is it your position that there can never be any justification for any military operation that causes civilian casualties? If not, where do you draw the line and why?
Fargo
#126
“The pertinent point is that Israel was called upon to withdraw, not unconditionally, but as RECIPROCATION for their neighbours ending their belligerence”
That is a false representation of resolution 242
I just knew finaly there wuld be an israeli suporter falsely claiming th invaded peoples th Palestiniens had to FIRST stop trying to force th invader Israel out of there lPalstinien lands BEFORE th invader would leave !
Thats why th invader is still there 42 years later , using this false excuse …oh we cann’t leave although we could but no we ain’t leaving till th occupied FIRST stop
trying to force us out Utter nonsense , no rsulution wuld ever be framed for th invader to stay
What resulution 242 below specificaly says is for Israel to withdraw (point (i) )
There is no condition attached to point (i) allowing Israel to remain IN ANY CIRCUMSTANSES WHATSOEVER
QUOTE UN RESULUTION 242
” 1. Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:
(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict; (1967 War)
(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;”
Any breach of point (ii) , a separate conbdition would hav required further (BUT later) UN resulutions and actions against whoever breached point (ii)…independent of Israels withdrawal requirement in point (i)
It is why Israel and USA almost alone in world do not like reslution 242 …it calls for Israels withdrawal …fullstop
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_242
Glen! in the 1890s and the 1930s the Governments response to economy downturns was to cut spending the result was two extreme depressions.
Both depressions lead Governments gome to realise that they needed to be more involved in the delivery of services and needed greater regulation.
Lets take the 1890s depression and I refer to this one for it was an Australian depression but the result was to change the way this country politics was carryied out with the rise of the ALP and the Unions also lead the Governments to take social policy more seriously.
In many ways Deakin won the debate against Reid due in part to the Melbourne Bust, and Deakin’s view remained the cornerstone of policy in Australia uptil the 1980s.
The Scullin Government made several mistakes one being to cut spending, wages and pensions. the reality is that while I for one do not like Government debt and yes we can look at Japan but Japan had several issues that made their situation worst but I believe that the Government has made the correct call.
Japan’s biggest problem was it had a culture that people would join the one company and remain in that one place for life and also they have a greater level of aging with a minimal immigration rate which has meant thet Japan has reduced its ability to respond to the what happened in the 1990s.
There are dangers in our Government’s approach but I believe that the biggest positive has been the fact that it is seen to be acting this in turn gves business and consumers something rather than if the Government took the o its a recession out hands are tied.
Sure 2009 will be a tough year but I am confidence that we can get though the next 12 months without a recession and if this means we have a debt then so be it.
The choice is we try and keep the budget in surphus but as unemployment rises we will need to increase welfare payments this in turn will need to be funded so instead of the Government spending money to get people spending it will instead be funding people to sit around on unemployment.
Those unemployed people will not be spending as much as those who are employed and even those employed will become nervious therefore the Governemnt would be faced with needing to increase regional grants and other financial steps to keep things together, this spending would be dead spending.
While if the Government is giving people payouts which are greater than any welfare will be in a manner that sends a clear message they we (Government) have confidence then this will hopefully underpin consumer confidence and reduce the risk of greater job loses mostly in areas of retail and hospitality two areas that have many low payed workers and in general are very exposed.
I say to those who want to repeat the policies of Scullin and the Victorian premiers, lets not for we know from history what the result is.
If the Government wants to make savings, lets start by doing away with the Job Network and Disabled Employment providers.
I know we all have heard a great deal about the Great Depression but not as much is known about the Melbourne Bust so the following is a quick history less as recorded in a book “The Land Boomers” by Michael Cannon, published in 1966…
I will point out that back in the 1890s the economy was largle unregulated and in many ways suited the policy outcomes aspired to by the Howard Government!
Victoria was made rich by gold, and populous by the immigrants who sought it.
Two great economic booms and depressions had already shaken nineteenth century Victoria. The first occurred shortly after the early Melbourne land sales of 1837, reaching its peak about three years later. The discovery of gold sparked off the second great boom, which reached its peak in the 1850s. People had money to burn, and either dissipated it in wild extravagance or bought property at inflated prices. But because of the continuous rich flow of gold, there was comparatively little suffering when the inevitable crash followed.
Then came the land boom of the 1880s. This time every type and degree of man was involved. Clergymen, labourers, widows, schoolmasters all grasped at the chance of quick wealth and invested their savings.
The land mania of the 1880s took two main forms. The first was based on a plethora of building societies, whose optimistic officials were relieved that every family in the colony could simultaneously build their own house, keep up the payments through good times and bad, and support an army of investors who were being paid high rates of interest for the use of their money. The second form of mania was the deeply held belief that it was impossible to lose money by investing in land a belief that persists to the present day.
The boom continued to gather strength. In 1885 the harvest was prolific, the price of wool was high, the railways made a profit for the first time in the colony’s history, and optimism reigned supreme. A few warning voices were raised overseas, but heard as from afar.
In 1886 it appeared to some of the associated banks that the land boom had reached its zenith and would now plunge downwards. They became alarmed at the large withdrawals being made
to meet land payments, and increased the interest rate on deposits and overdrafts by 1 per cent. For a year land speculation became less profitable
Then in 1887 there began a new wave of speculation, the land boom proper, so forceful that it over-rode all considerations of interest rates. Land selling in Surrey Hills for 15 shillings a foot in 1884 rose to 15 Pounds in 1887. Land at Burwood rose from 70 to 300 Pounds an acre.
In the city there was fantastic competition for blocks, fanned by constant reports of fortunes which had been made by holding on to the blocks for a few months and reselling.
Once again the banks, dismayed by wildly fluctuating values, began calling in overdrafts. Unfortunately, some of the leading banks had encouraged speculation when money was plentiful, and ruthlessly suppressed it when the inevitable reaction set in. This traditional banking policy, aimed primarily at safeguarding the banks’ own interests, proved utterly ruinous to the general community.
The land promotors began looking elsewhere for easy finance. Thus the years 1888, 1889 and even 1890 saw the formation of most of the disastrous land and finance companies, and so-called land banks. Under the loose banking and company laws of the time, they were able to take savings deposits, issue shares, float loans, discount promissory notes and other commercial paper, and in general perform all the functions of an established bank.
The boom soared upwards to dizzy new heights. How could such values last? The maximum rentals which tenants were willing to pay often amounted to only 2.5% return on the money spent on sites and buildings. As the boom petered out, many tenants could not pay even that. A few experienced speculators realised what would happen, and quietly began to sell off their shares and land while there was yet time.
Simultaneously, there began a series of calamitous industrial conflicts between employers and the developing unions, mainly in the maritime and pastoral industries. The strike collapsed. But business never fully picked up again.
For a few months, many investors still appeared to be hypnotized by the boom. By the time they realised that the crash was indeed final, practically every land company was in liquidation and calls on their shares had gone forth. The same pressure was felt by the land banks, many of which owned shares in associated speculative companies. Some were able to use the public’s cash deposits to stay open a little longer. But one after another they toppled, the pressure
multiplying each day as their depositors took fright and withdrew their cash. From July 1891, when the Imperial Bank suspended payment, to March 1892, when the Australian Deposit and Mortgage Bank suspended, no fewer than 20 major financial institutions, with liabilities of nearly 20 million Pounds, closed down.
Every day brought news and rumours of fresh disasters, of another land company folding up. And when they folded, there came the inevitable calls of capital on their partly paid shares to help pay the creditors.
Suicide became a commonplace solution.
By the end of 1891 the bottom had completely dropped out of the land market.
As bank shares and other stocks began to slide in value, the Directors of certain companies sent out dummies to buy their own shares and prop up their value temporarily while the Directors sold their personal holdings.
Said Table Talk, just before Christmas 1892, “Never before in the history of the colony has a Christmas holiday been shrouded in such deep gloom. Shop-keepers complain that their customers appeared to have forgotten that the season of good cheer was at hand, and started on being asked for the accustomed order, as if reminded of the changed condition of their purses that does not admit of luxuries or extras.”
The year 1892 may have been sombre, but the disasters to come in 1893 were quite unprecedented. Enough misuse of financial power had been revealed to make every man suspicious of the soundest institutions, and to be fearful about the safety of his own bank deposits. Quietly, and then more quickly, a general run on the established banks began.
Public disquiet was multiplied by the suspension of the Commercial Bank on 7 April 1893, following heavy withdrawals and a slump in the value of its shares.
On the weekend of 29-30 April 1893, the great and powerful National Bank privately advised the Premier that because of the continuous run on its deposits, it intended to suspend business on the Monday. On Sunday 30 April, Cabinet met secretly and decided to declare the whole week a banking Holiday. On Monday 1 May 1893, men picked up their morning papers to read the incredible news that the colony’s entire banking system had apparently broken down.
The Angel of Death came early and stayed late in the Melbourne of 1892 and 1893. The collapse of the boom economy was sudden and dramatic. As each company closed its doors, it dragged others down with it. Clerks, surveyors, accountants, builders, and every other kind of employee was thrown out of work, and onto a labour market which was harsh enough in good times, but almost non-existent in bad times. Their savings ran out, and still there was no work to be had. Nor was there any form of help, beyond private charity which usually came too little and too late.
In the absence of trustworthy statistics, it is difficult for us today to form a complete picture of the extent of unemployment and the human suffering it produced. Some contemporary observers claimed that every second man was out of work, but these estimates could only be guesswork. Thousands of people were privately supported by others. Thousands left Melbourne. Thousands lived on scraps and municipal handouts. All we can say for certain is that this was the worst depression in Australian history, before or since.
Ron
well said old son
MB
Am reading Curtins autobio,interestingly WA was the lead state in tackling unemployment during the’30s,using much the same methods as you allude to.
Billbo
A massacre is a massacre
A ghetto is a ghetto
Bullying is Bullying
There are no degrees of “rightness”
All right, Gusface, you answer the question: Is it your position that there can never be any justification for any military operation that causes civilian casualties? If not, where do you draw the line and why?
Billbo
Where the UN clearly endorses military action,is an act justifiable.
To ensure that each country has the security of collective action,a mandate must be issued.
RAMSI as one example is sufficient.
Gusface if you are attacked under International Law you have the right to respond and while the response has been overly aggressive the reality is as William points out.
MB
I would like to know where,specifically, the UN endorses indiscriminate pattern bombing.
Also where and when the UN has given a mandate to Israel’s actions.
You said it Glen. Hence why I take what you say about the economy with a grain of salt.
Yep, that was me Fargot 61.
You want peace in the Middle East, you have two options.
1. Israel should stop encroaching on land that is not theirs.
2. Confiscate weapons from Israel or supply the same amount of weapons to the Palestinians.
I’ll tell you something, you will get peace sooner or later. The way things are at the moment you will NEVER get peace.
You DO NOT know who started it. As far as I’m concerned, from someone who is totally unbiased, open minded and completely independent, and from someone who does not have blood cell of either going back as many strands of bloodline as records were kept. Israel have lost ALL credibility.
What about you Fargo 61, what is your ancestry?
Gusface there are two issues
1) Under every set of International laws relating to War since the second peace conference of 1896 there has been a clear rule that states that if two sides have a cease fire agreement in place and one side breaks it then the other side has the right two respond.
2) The same laws also outline what constitudes a war crime and from what I know you are only allowed to attack military targets, you are to take care when it comes to clivians and it is considered a wear crime to attack clivians on proposes.
I will add it is a war crime to hide your milary targets amoungst cilivian areas for it exposes them to attack.
Also if you attack clivian targets you are open to payment for damage.
I know I shouldn’t get involved in another argument about the Middle East, and particularly while I’m on holidays, for this way lies madness as we all know, but I can’t let the assertion above that “we should forget about 1948 and concentrate on the present” pass without comment. It is impossible to understand what is happening in Gaza now without knowing that history, and indeed the whole history of the area back to the 19th century. (This is why we have historians, by the way.)
* A hundred years ago there was no such thing as a Palestinian. The area that is now Israel/Palestine was part of the Ottoman province of Syria. The coastal areas where most Israelis now live was a malarial swamp. The upland areas around Jerusalem and Nablus had a small population of Arabs, about half of them Christians. There was also a long-resident Jewish population, and some Zionist settlements which began in the 1890s.
* The word “Palestine” was invented by the British (who remembered their Roman history) for their part of Ottoman Syria when they occupied it in 1918. It was then gradually appropriated by the Arab population as a national identity in the 20s and 30s. During the British period the Jewish and Arab populations both grew rapidly, as British administration and Jewish capital developed the territory, particularly commercial agriculture, attracting Arab immigration from other parts of the Arab world. Thus the great majority of both Israelis and Palestinians are descended from people whose ancestors settled there after 1918.
* By the 1940s the British were confronted with two sets of competing nationalisms, aggravated on the Jewish side by the needs of refugees from Europe. Neither Jews nor Arabs, it must be repeated, had any exclusive right on their side. The Arabs had won the area by force from the Byzantines in the 8th century, but they had lost sovereignty to the Ottoman Turks in the 15th century, and Arab settlement before 1918 was very sparse. Palestinian nationality was a post-1918 invention. Of course once it was invented it had to be accepted as a reality, but that doesn’t mean that mythical Palestinian claims to long-standing sovereignty should be accepted also.
* The obvious and correct solution to this impasse was to partition the territory, which is what the UN proposed in 1947. If the Arabs had accepted the Partition Plan, there would now have been a Palestinian state, twice the size of the current Palestinian territories, with co-sovereignty over Jerusalem, for more than 60 years. Rejecting it was the stupidest thing the Arab leaders ever did (which is saying something), and is the root cause of all the subsequent troubles.
* About 800,000 Arabs left what is now Israel in 1948. Most of them are now dead, but their descendants are still penned up in “refugee” camps by the Arab states, who prefer to keep the “refugee” issue alive rather than allow these unfortunate people to be resettled. Israel has been a sovereign state for more than 60 years. It is not going to go away, and it is not going to accept a “right of return” for 4 million people who have never set foot within its borders. The best that can now be salvaged for the Palestinians from the folly of their leaders is a state in Gaza and the majority of the West Bank, and resettlement elsewhere for those who can’t be accommodated.
* That is what Clinton and Barak offered Arafat at Camp David in 2000, and rejecting that offer was the second-stupidest thing the Arabs ever did. The worst misfortune ever to befall the Palestinians was Arafat, a corrupt and incompetent fool who threw away the best offer the Palestinians were ever likely to get so that he could retain his loot and his own power over his squalid empire of “refugee” camps.
* So long as the Palestinians allow themselves to be led by gangsters like Arafat and fanatics like Hamas, they are not going to get anything except more misery. The Palestinians have to accept the painful fact that they chose to resort to force in 1948, and were defeated, and that there is no reversing that verdict. Every time they have resorted to force since then, whether in 1967, 1973, the PLO terrorist campaigns in the 70s, the first and second Intifadas, they have been defeated again, and have just made their situation worse and encouraged hardline attitudes in Israel.
MB
I support the state of Israel and its right to exist
I do not support the use of a “sledgehammer to crack a nut” (pun intended)
As regards your point 1, my reading is that the ceasefire ended on the 19th Dec.
Point 2 belongs to the IWCT I believe. (milosevic anyone)
BTW do you support a multinational,racial,religious force to enforce the ‘49 border?
Is it too late for the International community to impose the 1948 proposals.
I’m no expert on the Middle East but the historical situation pre 1948 is part of the problem. Israel was set up by the UN. At the time the UN was mostly European (esp the WW2 victors) and some other countries mainly in South and Latin America. There were no representatives of the Palestinian people in the UN at the time – Palestine was administered by Britain. The establishment of Israel was seen in part as an answer to the Holocaust and anti-jewish prejudice in Europe. The problem was that people in Palestine, most Arab people and most people affected by colonialism did not support having a new state based on European notions of what was right for Europeans and everyone else. Afghanistan, Cuba, Egypt, Greece, India, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey and Yemen all voted against the UN resolution setting up Israel. War resulted but the Israelis with support from their sponsors defeated the neighbouring Arab regimes which were very weak and Israel seized quite a bit of land beyond that set out by the UN. Sixty years later it is not just Hamas that doesn’t recognise Israel – many Atlasses sold in Arab countries don’t show Israel as an entity. The PLO/Fatah attempted to negotiate a 2 state solution but the best that was proposed at the time was a bad outcome for a Palestinian state with myriads of roads crisscrossing the state with Israeli rights of access and all sorts of rights for colonial settlements which had been sponsored by Israelis in land occupied post 1967. The issue is very difficult but one thing is for sure – Israeli expansionists (who are still funding and acquiescing in colonial sttlements of the West Bank) and Muslim fundamentalists seem to feed off each other and successfully squeeze out more moderate and democratic groups.
William
And I would not be relying on israeli Media ’spin’ of alleged forwarnings
“Let’s just say for the sake of argument that it’s true. Is there anything you’ve said that you would revise? More broadly, is it your position that there can never be any justification for any military operation that causes civilian casualties? If not, where do you draw the line and why?”
William , I’m not sure I could do proper justise to your queston briefly , but generaly queston 1/ yes never a justification to seek to kill one hamas knowing you’re going to kill 14 other family members , th hamas leader will get replaced anyway , so its not even a ‘military operation’ making a skerick of miltary diferense but th 14 dead family members cann’t be replaced Queston 2/ th resistanse is because Israel hav not withdrawn as per UN 242 so th civilian collaterall damage you refer to if any , would be on th Israeli side by a military operation by Palestiniens trying to forse Israel to leave non Israeli lands….and not th innocent civilians of th invadee th Palestiniens
So th line is whether you ar th invadee or th invador Now once military operations commense th invadee may actualy cause civilian casulities and there hav been terrible ones there condemnable However th key issue is th INVADOR (Israel) who is so defined by th UN itself and th invador Israel is in absolutely DEFIANSE of UN resultion 242 and is th one causing th innocent civilian casualities by dropping bombs on a defenceless city , there is no justification at all , they ar th invador and that itself by remaining an invador for 42 years is where they crossed th line (Dropping those one ton bombs on civilians has just magnified how far accross th line they oblivously ar
Resolution 242 (Israeli withdrawal to 1967 borders) needs to be implemented , with concurent USA militay backing securing Isdrael’s security , because being an Israeli invador guarantees no resolution at all to conflict Alternative is to ignore th express UN 242 rsolutions suported by most countrys on earth , which is occuring for 42 years…so referenses to “ceasefires” broken in that comntext ar quite irrelevant
.
Death count… th invadee Palestiniens 420 to two days ago (more since) …th invador Israel from rockets 4 (four)
FORGET histary lessons of 1948 or Centuries before…we hav a UN , a overwhelming no of World countrys voted for resulution 242 (refer my #130) , saying Israel must withdraw…..and 42 years later it still has not …and it is bombing th invadees with one ton bombs killing innocent civilans incl womenn
and kids…..anyting else is a red herring to reality or media ’spin’ This time th West is wrong
Actually Israel was set up by the Jewish people. All the UN did was propose a plan to create a Palestinian state alongside it. The Jews accepted this, the Arabs rejected it and resorted to arms. When they were defeated, Israel kept the bits it had occupied during the fighting. If you are the party that resorts to force, you are responsible for your losses.
There will never be peace in this Israel/Palestine conflict as long as:
1. Both sides think that violence can solve the political and social problems.
2. Israel refuses to withdraw from all occupied territories, return to pre67 border.
Yes of course it is. No-one is going to force Israel to do anything, and certainly not return to the Partition Plan borders. Even a return to the 1967 ceasefire line (which was not a recognised border) is most unlikely. The likelihood is that the security fence will be the new de facto, and eventually de jure, Israel-Palestine border. The majority of Israelis are willing to live alongside a Palestinian state IF the Palestinians and the Arab states recognise Israel, renounce violence and drop the “right of return” and other fantasies. If that is not forthcoming, Israel is willing to live with the current situation indefinitely, and has the means to do so. That’s the reality of the matter.
Violence can and frequently does solve political and social problems. The Palestinians obviously think so, since they have been trying to solve the territorial issue by force since the 1930s. The problem has been the Jews/Israelis have always been able to respond with superior and/or better organised force. Sooner or later the Palestinians will notice this, but I’m not holding my breath.
There was no “pre67 border”, only the 1948 ceasefire line. The only legally binding borders Israel has are those with Egypt and Jordan, which have recognised its existence. Since Jordan has renounced its claim to the West Bank, and since Egypt never actually annexed Gaza, these two pieces of land are “terra nullius” pending a treaty between Israel and some future Palestinian state.
“the majority of Israelis are willing to live alongside a Palestinian state IF the Palestinians and the Arab states recognise Israel, renounce violence and drop the “right of return” and other fantasies.”
You got th “IF” out of place….and that sort of false tinking has got us what….42 years of conflict
Th only “IF” that counts is for Israel to comply with th UN 242 , and withdraw from non Israeli land , a point you conveniently ignore ….and it is there actual illegal presense which is at th hart of why there is still conflict
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 13 » Show All