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 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 13 » Show All
Vera
his lack of depth and constant attempts to be relevant, are proof enough he fully deserves the monniker “talcum”
with of course apologies to talcum powder which is useful (something I think poor MT is incapable of)
BTW dont know if you caught his soundbite re the republic “I would wait till her majesty Queen Elizabeth 2 passes away”
next it will be “I would wait till his majesty King William passes away”
and so on……
Dont let this man near the republican movement ever
Gusface, that loud dramatic voice and serious face Talcum puts on whenever he’s in front of a camera is enough to make you cringe. Oh the embarrassment if he was our PM and the world copped a look at him!
An excellent article on the futility of its military solution.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/03/israel-attack-hamas-gaza-peace
You can almost substitute:
Germany has plenty of tactics for war, but none for peace – A leadership dazzled by its own military might ignores the political reality and believes the only solutions lie in force
Japan has plenty of tactics for war, but none for peace – A leadership dazzled by its own military might ignores the political reality and believes the only solutions lie in force – China/2WW.
USA has plenty of tactics for war, but none for peace – A leadership dazzled by its own military might ignores the political reality and believes the only solutions lie in force – Vietnam
USSR has plenty of tactics for war, but none for peace – A leadership dazzled by its own military might ignores the political reality and believes the only solutions lie in force – Afghanistan
USA has plenty of tactics for war, but none for peace – A leadership dazzled by its own military might ignores the political reality and believes the only solutions lie in force – Iraq
Nothing has changed.
But what could be regarded as a success in political terms with an election due soon?
Winning the election………………..
http://www.thejerusalemfund.org/carryover/pubs/20001222ib.html
If it was anywhere else in the world it would be called apartheid ( what was that spelling rule again; i before e except after c).
There will be no solution until Israel has to pay for it’s own weapons, not going to happen. Tension would be reduced if Israel was a secular society, but that isn’t going to happen either. It’s been going on for thousands of years, its a bit of dirt that was won and lost before the Romans took an interest in it. If you want to be sickened by the actions of either side actually read the first testament, killing in the name of god does not make it right.
Taking sides is a complete waste of time, no matter what they will still be fighting long after we are dead.
On things electoral, I was watching the count of the Minnesota Sentate race absentee votes (yes, sad) at http://www.theuptake.org and was left wondering if it were possible to extend this sort of attention to other places. If, say, a recount was asked for here in Aust, could we also have camera’s there live-streaming us the count results? And while its absolutely fabulous (no, no pun here…move along…) that we have sites like this live blogging elections, could we have results fed from say individual counting centres? I know its an enormous effort, but most major parties have scrutineers at most polling places, so why not webcam overview/live blog from polling centres?
Actually I can see a mess of logistical issues here, but the thought still remains – how DO we ensure a really open and transparent system, especially around counting? Got to add, though, the commentary about the various aspects of the Minnesota stautes and rumours/politics was pretty interesting too.
Oh, and while we’re here discussing Israel-Palestine issues, perhaps we could also cast a thought out for the other, ongoing, major wars/conflicts such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Darfur, Somalia, DRC, other ongoing conflicts/insurgencies like Eritrea, Mali-Niger-Algeria-Libya [Taureg uprising], Western Sahara, PKK-Turkey, Colombia; and ongoing regional sources of prior and potential conflict such as Bouganville-Solomon Islands and the Phillipines.
Hey Ron – great comments. Adam – didn’t you used to work for Michael Danby? Mightn’t that colour your perception of this conflict? No problem if it does but IF it does, it may provide some insight into your position. Oh, and by that I mean, having worked for a pro-Israel MP (who also campaigns on anti-semitic and racism issues) could colour the way you formulate arguments on this subject.
Kill em all – let God sort it out! ffs
btw – I was talking about those on PB that continue with this circle-jerk of comments… not the Israelis or Palestinians/Hama’s whatever
Anyone see John Howard interviewed during the Cricket today? His fraud continues, he had to have a pink tie on during the interview, of course, to support the McGrath Foundation, but he did not wear one to the cricket.
So he “borrows” Shane Warne’s tie, and the guy doing the interview picks him up on it.
He is still all spin – no substance.
Warne assisting Howard in matters of spin? Who would have thought!
Stewart J, yes I did used to work for Michael Danby, and I learned a lot from him and other members of the Jewish community I met while working for him. One thing I learned was: If you want to test your ability as a debater, try having an argument with Jews. The Talmudic tradition is alive and well even among secular Jews. My views on the Middle East however arise from nearly 40 years of watching and reading. I would not have worked for Danby had I not already been in broad agreement with his views. (He is by the way a moderate in terms of the Jewish community, since he supports a two-state solution.) I’m old enough to have watched the whole sorry saga of the “Palestinian resistance” from the first airplane hijackings in 1970, and a more futile and self-defeating exercise it is hard to imagine. The Israeli Labour government would probably have withdrawn from most of the territory occupied in 1967 (though not Jerusalem) within a few years had the Arab states been willing to recognise Israel and had the PLO not launched its campaign of terrorism.
Fargo
My take on ‘excellently’ well would be to replace Hamas with Fatah. This would require moving Fatah fighters back into Gaza from the West Bank. It would then first require them to capture or kill most of the Hamas fighters. This would take a full scale, total occupation of Gaza for months. Gaza is different in this respect because it lacks the strategic depth that Hezbollah had in Lebanon. In this scenario, the Israelis here would also risk Obama not doing exactly the same thing after an election as he was talking before an election. A lengthy occupation would also cause great collatoral damage – vis a vis the Golan, vis a vis the vulnerability of moderate arab governments to maintain themselves.
Significant troop casualties would, I suspect, not be a problem if Hamas was basically eliminated and replaced with Fatah.
Short of that, I also suspect you are right on not being able to completely stop the missiles. Is, after all, asymmetrical warfare. The question then will be how well Israeli domestic expectations are managed and how that matches with how long before the missiles start going back over? How many of them? Again, for Israeli domestic politics, if the missiles start landing after the election, the pressue will be off.
Adam
What would your response be to the expulsion of Israeli Arabs?
As part of an overall settlement I think all Palestinians should live in the Palestinian state and all Jews/Israelis in the Israeli state. If Arabs currently resident in Israel choose to identify as Israeli, that would include them, but my understanding is that most of them identify as Palestinian. It would be possible to redraw the border in the South Galillee area to put the majority of Palestinians currently in Israel into Palestine, as part of an overall drawing of final boundaries.
Adam @ 214
Thanks. I think you are right on identification, there are apparently 100,000 of them demontrating more or less as we write.
I don’t know, but I imagine that most of them would want to stay, regardless of whether they identify as Israeli or Palestinian. They would have low status but the opportunity to share in security and a growing economy. Any Palestinian
State (assuming it accepts Palestinian refugees from camps all over), is likely to be an economic basket case, and highly unstable politically, into the indefinite future.
Would your approach involve forcing Palestinian-identifing Arab Israeli to shift?
A final settlement would entail drawing boundaries between Israel and Palestine, giving the best possible separation between Jews and Arabs. Those who found themselves on the wrong side of the line would have to be resettled, either in the corresponding state or elsewhere, no doubt at the expense of the international community. I am of course unhappy at the idea of forcible resettlement, but in the peculiar circumstances of Israel-Palestine it will probably be inevitable. The obvious precedent is the Greeks and Turks, who get on much better now that they live in separate states. Israel is a Jewish state, and can’t be expected to accommodate a large and growing population who do not accept that premise. If the Israeli Arabs want to be Israelis, they’re not helping their case by increasingly indentifying with the rejectionist Palestinians, as seems to be the case.
Whether a Palestinian state would be a basket case economically or politically would be up to the Palestinians. They would have many rich friends, including the Saudis and the EU, with a strong incentive to be generous. They would need to find a leadership which is neither corrupt nor obsessed with martyrdom and jihad. The precedents in the rest of the Arab world are not encouraging on that, but it is possible.
Adam – I’ve really have enjoyed reading your comments today, thanks much.
Any time
Adam, for us ignoramus, please explain exactly:
1. what is a “Jewish State”
2. what makes it so special.
3. would you have problem if other ’states” apply the same principle, eg: an Australian state, an Indian state, an Iraqi state etc etc.
Adam’s view on so called “rejectionists”, presumably those that want something more than being kicked out of their homes and treated like second class citizens, is also interesting.
Ironic considering Israel only exists due to forcible resettlement.
Finns
Far from being an ignoramus,I prefer being a snuffleuffagus and yet I dont get what a “jewish state” is.
Maybe we should classify All countries by religion
Gus, China has about 100 millions non-Chinese Han minorities. If we are to apply the Adam’s Principle, what should China do with these large and growing population who do not accept that premise.
Shoot them? kill them? nuke them? deport them to Israel?
If you choose to identify as an ignoramus, Finns, I’ll have to take you at your word.
1. A Jewish state is a state founded by Jews, as a national home for the Jewish people, on land which is the historic homeland of the Jews.
2. Only its relative newness. Most states in the world regard themselves as being the state of the particular people that live in it. Australia is one of the minority of states which do not do so, because we are a settler state with an official commitment to multiculturalism.
3. Most states, other than settler states, and particularly older states which existed before the colonial era, do apply that principle. China, Russia, Germany, Japan, France – all apply variants of the “jus sanguinis”, which equates citizenship with “blood” (ie, race). Israel does not define nationality by blood, but rather by religion – any Jew, whether by birth or conversion, who moves to Israel is an Israeli citizen. This also applies to non-religious Jews (that is people who have a Jewish mother but do not practise Judaism), provided they have not adopted another religion.
Regarding the Coalition Senate ticket in Victoria, I suspect that deal was made when the State Coalition was formed.
Peter Ryan’s decision didn’t make much sense to me at the time, but if you throw in a Senate seat and cost savings from probable joint Legislative Council tickets the deal has at least some merit for the Nats.
The Chinese constitution guarantees equality of citizenship to defined non-Han peoples, such as the Mongols and Tibetans. But it is very difficult for a foreigner to become a Chinese citizen.
Finns
Exactly!
I think if the veil of religion is removed the true geopolitical reason comes into play.
A western footprint in the middle east is all I see of the state of Israel
Outremer was its name back during the crusades
Ah, now the true ignoramus has revealed himself. Non-ignoramuses recall that Britain and France strongly opposed the creation of Israel, and that among the first states to recognise Israel was the USSR.
Adam, when comes to this, i will wear the ignoramus badge with honour. I will even wear Gusface’s snuffleuffagus. It sounds 10 times worse than ignoramus.
As you wish. I prefer knowledge to ignorance. As Chairman Mao says: “No investigation, no right to speak.”
Adam
“Ah, now the true ignoramus has revealed himself. Non-ignoramuses recall that Britain and France strongly opposed the creation of Israel, and that among the first states to recognise Israel was the USSR.”
So now your saying Israel is a creation of the USSR
you sir are a DOLT
Adam,
The Tao doesn’t take sides;
it gives birth to both good and evil.
The Master doesn’t take sides;
she welcomes both saints and sinners.
The Tao is like a bellows:
it is empty yet infinitely capable.
The more you use it, the more it produces;
the more you talk of it, the less you understand.
Kindly don’t misrepresent what I say. Israel is a creation of the Jewish people. But it’s a fact that the USSR actively supported its creation, and that their proxies the Czechs sold the Jewish Agency large quantities of arms before and during the War of Independence.
Finns, I’m a historical materialist, not a Taoist.
Adam, You have my deepest sympathy
I’m going shopping now. Salaam alaykum.
Adam
A cuppla links to help you find the facts
http://archive.timesonline.co.uk/tol/viewArticle.arc?articleId=ARCHIVE-The_Times-1948-05-15-04-002&pageId=ARCHIVE-The_Times-1948-05-15-04
Trumans official recognition of Israel may 14 1948
http://archive.timesonline.co.uk/tol/viewArticle.arc?articleId=ARCHIVE-The_Times-1917-11-09-07-010&pageId=ARCHIVE-The_Times-1917-11-09-07
The Balfour declaration
I think it is highly dubious for people to say Israel shouldnt kill off Hamas…it’s like saying America shouldnt eliminate Al-Qaeda it’s madness…
Gus, I’m very familiar with those documents. What’s your point?
Adam
the west has been pivotal to Israel’s creation,as per my earlier post
Those two links help those that would in someway associate the USSR with Israel’s creation and somehow claim Russian hegemony over Israe
I never said anything about “Russian hegemony.” I said that the USSR supported the creation of Israel, while Britain and France opposed it, which are facts, and facts which go to disprove your silly assertion that Israel was all an imperialist plot. The Balfour Declaration is irrelevant to this, because the British changed their position in the 1930s, as everybody knows (why do you think Begin blew up the King David Hotel?). The US under Roosevelt also opposed a Jewish state. Under Truman the US changed its view, partly because of Truman’s personal philo-Semitism, partly because of the urgent situation of the Jewish refugees in Europe, partly because of his need for Jewish votes at the 1948 election. No-one denies that US support was important in getting the Partition Plan accepted at the UN, but that is a long way from proving that Israel was created as a western plot, or whatever. US support for Israel has always been opposed by the State Department on the grounds that undermines the US strategic position in the Arab world.
Adam
your will’o'wisp argument is going nowhere.
The Balfour declaration was a defacto signal to the Zionist movement (read the Times article-it says those exact words) to creat a State under the Aegis of the west (led of course by the UK at that stage)
BTW I never said “that Israel was a Western imperialist plot”-merely a creation of the West.
The new Murray Darling Basin Authority site is at:
http://www.mdba.gov.au/
Water storages in the MDB as at 24 Dec were at 22%. A disaster in the making. The December rains were mostly being soaked up by ultra-dry catchments but did take pressure off irrigation requirements.
Yes, it was. Likewise, the repudiation of the Balfour Declaration in the 1930s was a withdrawal of that signal. The British fought tooth and nail to prevent the creation of Israel, and they only give in in 1948 because they were bankrupt and couldn’t afford to carry on.
This is just factually false. The facts on the ground in Palestine were created by the Jewish militias in the teeth of British resistance. The Partition Plan was the doing of the UN, where it had the support of everyone except the Arab/Islamic world. Israel came into existence when the Jews declared it to do so, and it was then immediately recognised by both the US and the USSR.
Adam
Could you please provide a link to support your repudiation claims.
Also i would be interested as to how then you would classify Israel,If it is not the creation of the west as you asset, ie theocracy,etc
“If it is not the creation of the west as you asset” asset=assert
Gusface, this might help a little. Wikipedia has heaps of info on all aspects of Israel,s history and formation with lots of further links.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel
In 1936 the Peel Commission recommended that Palestine be partitioned into a Jewish and an Arab state. The British government rejected the recommendations, and appointed the Woodhead Commission, which in 1938 recommended that only a small coastal strip be given to the Jews, and not as an independent state. Both sides rejected this. In 1939 the McDonald White Paper formally repudiated Britain’s support for a Jewish state, instead recommending a binational state in which the two sides would be represented proportionate to population. If implemented, this would have produced an Arab-majority government and the probable expulsion of the Jewish population. Not surprisingly the Jews rejected this – recall that the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, then the Palestinian leader, had spent the war years in Berlin.
More here showing that the Jewish Agency, a Jerwish leadership Group in the then British Mandate of Palestine, formed under ther League of nations, formed the “State” of Israel themselves.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel
Scorps
Cheers.
Having had two business partners (one baghdad born,both ‘67 vets) who were jewish and Israeli (now bona fide aussies) back in the 90’s, I understand the nature of Israel and the Jewish aspiration for a homeland and its subsequent acceptance by all parties.
I merely wish to assert that Israel is a creation of the west-not the Africans,Asians,S Americans etc.
Its current invasion does no good to its reputation.
A theocracy is a state ruled by priests. I suppose a Jewish theocracy would be a state ruled by rabbis, although they are not priests, only teachers. Israel was founded by secular Zionists, most of them socialists. They were emphatically opposed to rule by rabbis, although of course Judaism is the state religion and non-Jews do suffer some disabilities in matters like marriage law. It’s only since Likud came to power in 1977 that the secular character of Israel has to some extent been eroded, a development most Israelis deplore. If Israel didn’t have such a stupid electoral system, the religious fringe would not have gained the power it now has.
The long and the short of it is that the people of Gaza and the West Bank can choose self-determination, statehood and peace anytime they want. But so far they have mostly chosen war – or at least, war has been chosen for them (imposed upon them) by their leaders.
The greatest tragedy of the present conflict is that it is completely avoidable. The deaths we are seeing – like all the deaths of the last 60 years – will accomplish absolutely nothing for the stateless people of Gaza and the West Bank. The grotesque reality is that many prefer death – even for their children – than peace and life.
This is the nauseating truth of decades of misrule and false promise by the warriors of Palestine.
Pages: « 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 13 » Show All