Mid-East Views, Land and Resources.

[tcpip]

YouTube has an excellent six minute video that show many of the difficulties of Palestians living under Israeli occupation. Many of el-jays resident libertarians show themselves to be against freedom (for Palestinians). On topic, homais says some very sensible and balanced things about the current conflict in Lebanon, which are quite similar to the concerns of Johnathan Steele. How could both sides have blundered so badly?

A certain trouble maker has been warbling on about land and housing issues. The fundamental claim is correct; well meaning legislators who ration land are just as much to blame for rising house costs as a taxation system that does not capture the unearned increment in rising land prices. In other resource related news, the ALP is set to ditch their uranium policy, an action will undoubtably lose more votes than what they'll gain. Professor Emertius Ian Lowe has a different idea about energy. Further on-topic (from soulvessel Exxon is still avoiding payouts from the Valdez oil spill of 1989. You can email the CEO here.

claudine_c's speech at the Unitarians on rural health work in India was excellent. Noted the particular difficulties of dealing with an entrenched caste system and the inappropriateness of "western" medical mores. Followed by Brent McAuslan's discussion on the history of war at the philosophy group. Discussion tended towards the psychological motivations. Then the Cybernoia game which imajica_lj has summarised. In rodent news, Vagabond has hurt his spine, probably following a fall. Every dozen steps he lets out a sharp squeak of pain. He's currently drugged up on metacam and sleeping soundly ;-). Well done to dr_nic for providing the worst company URLs.

Comments

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

I wasn't really thinking about people changing their primary vote, although that will be a factor. I'm rather thinking that Labor party activists will be significantly disinclined to do the hard yards for the party come the election period and the probable reaction of the media ("U-Mine Backflip" the front page blaze on the Herald Sun today) and the resonance in the community.

[strangedave.livejournal.com]

If you think the party activists on the Left (and its obviously the Left we are talking about) are so invested in uranium policy that its going to overwhelm their feelings about industrial relations, etc, I'll have to say you know the Left better than I do - but I'd be pretty appalled and disappointed.

Its my feeling that the Uranium issue is an '80s hangover - firmly entrenched positions on both sides that have barely changed since then, but less of a big issue. Its something thats important as an issue within the ALP because its one of the few clear factional lines of division, but the people who cared about it more than they care about traditional ALP issues like industrial relations have largely left the ALP, IMO (or moved towards the centre like, well, just about everybody). Like most of the Green Left/Greens/left of the Dems corner of Australian politics, they will never vote for the ALP as a primary vote, and always give it a two party preferred boost over the Libs, so the ALP has stopped caring.

That, and the muddying of the waters with nuclear power being painted as a potential part of the green house solution, makes me think its not the issue for the broad electorate it once was, more an issue for people who still remember the battles of the 80s.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

I'll have to say you know the Left better than I do - but I'd be pretty appalled and disappointed.

Even if there is 10% disinclination that will be sufficient. It is an unnecessary moment of wedge politics; it will divide the Party when it needs to be united on the issue of industrial relations.


and always give it a two party preferred boost over the Libs, so the ALP has stopped caring.

That's where I think you're seriously mistaken. All that the Libs need is someone who's slightly liberal on social issues, reconciliation, gay marriage etc. and the 2nd preferences of the Greens and Democrats will happily flow.


Its my feeling that the Uranium issue is an '80s hangover - firmly entrenched positions on both sides that have barely changed since then, but less of a big issue.

Well, that's not quite true. The Ferguson group, who are nominally of the left but will vote for the right on issues like immigration, uranium mining.

[decrypt-era.livejournal.com]

gangster machinations abound

[strangedave.livejournal.com]

Its internal party politics - what else would you expect?

That said, I wouldn't have thought it was particularly in evidence on this issue - the ugly stuff tends to come out for pre-selections (and often union elections).

[strangedave.livejournal.com]

Even if there is 10% disinclination that will be sufficient.

True, but I'd be really surprised if it was even that high.

It is an unnecessary moment of wedge politics;
It only looks like wedge politics from inside the party - I think its an attempt to avoid an obvious attempt at wedge politics on energy within public debate, and I think risking alienating a few embittered 80s survivors within the left of the party is less important than losing the environmental issue to Lib spin in the general populace.

All that the Libs need is someone who's slightly liberal on social issues, reconciliation, gay marriage etc.
Though luckily the parties right are systematically eliminating all such. But I think there is a flaw in the reasoning here - surely such a hypothetical Lib, presuming they retained preselection, would also need to additionally be anti-Uranium mining as well? Such a hypothetical candidate would indeed be a real threat - but I think its pretty unlikely they exist.

not quite true. The Ferguson group

True, I do tend to forget their existence, they not being in evidence over here (and if they were, they'd probably be in the Centre rather than the Left)

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

WRT to the left, I'd be surprised is Anthony Albanese's voice will be the only one at national conference.

The thing that troubles me about this is that it has been done with no regard to party unity whatsoever. Yes, Beazley will be able to push the ammendment through; noone is going to really split the Party a few months outside of a Federal election. The left will swallow the pill, be bitter about it, and put in a half-arsed effort to rally the troops, when all the time the debate could have been thrashed out with a view of keeping everyone in happy.

WRT to the Ferguson group, well given the state of the Victorian independents....

WRT to the Liberals, there's still a small bunch of Deakinite's in Victoria. Interestingly I believe the Costello may actually be their candidate. Not being that privy (or caring that deeply) about internal Liberal Party factionalism.

[strangedave.livejournal.com]

The thing that troubles me about this is that it has been done with no regard to party unity

I don't know if Beazley could manage party unity, or a useful debate, any other way.

WRT to the Ferguson group, well given the state of the Victorian independents....

Exactly - here, groups that have links to the Right or Left but significant policy differences have tended to join the Centre, because they can do so and still enjoy both relative policy independence and a reasonably faction behind them. There are issues that change that (notably the strong links between Centres heavies and the Right that meant Stephen Smith had to take his group independent to split with teh Right and deal with the Left), but there is a trend for the Centre to give such people a home.

WRT to the Liberals, there's still a small bunch of Deakinite's in Victoria

But ever shrinking, I gather. I am actually getting quite interested in Liberal factions at the moment, as it becomes clearer just how awful the Lib Right/Uglies actually are. I'd be quite interested to know more about it, if you have any ideas where to look. Victoria seems to be the most interesting state as far as Lib factions go, with the relative manouverings of Costello, Kroger and Kennett.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

I don't know if Beazley could manage party unity, or a useful debate, any other way.

Cobble together a compromise motion and have the shit fight after the election?

notably the strong links between Centres heavies and the Right that meant Stephen Smith had to take his group independent to split with teh Right and deal with the Left

So there's two right factions in the WA ALP? Interesting.

Victoria seems to be the most interesting state as far as Lib factions go, with the relative manouverings of Costello, Kroger and Kennett.

That's true enough; although I'd be interested in seeing what ideological differences, if any, there are.

[strangedave.livejournal.com]

Yes, in WA we have two Rights. And though its becoming rather more complicated now, for a few years there the dominant group was an alliance between the Left and Smiths New Right, bypassing the Centre and the Right.

Smiths group was basically the majority of the Rights political wing breaking away from the tyranny of the Shoppies. The smallest of the now four factions, (at least until the Left officially splits, which they continually teeter on the brink of), but strategic.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

News just in: Garrett, Albanese and Lawrence oppose the proposed changes.

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,19911666-5005961,00.html

[strangedave.livejournal.com]

Well, Garrett is a former NDP candiate, what else could he do?

I expect vocal debate, sure. But will it amount to anything more than public critique?

[zey.livejournal.com]

and always give it a two party preferred boost over the Libs, so the ALP has stopped caring.

As a lefty, I already preference the Nationals just ahead of the ALP and Libs at the arse end of my Senate ticket. I prefer the Nationals traitors ahead of the ALP's traitors.

That's where I think you're seriously mistaken. All that the Libs need is someone who's slightly liberal on social issues, reconciliation, gay marriage etc. and the 2nd preferences of the Greens and Democrats will happily flow.

Yep. In an era when the ALP and Coalition are inseparable on nearly all policies, a lot of us are doubtful the ALP would replace AWAs with anything better. They're certainly equally as likely to cave in to the Americans on all foreign and trade policy issues -- and labour policy is part of that.

Given halfway sensible social policy from the Coalition, and the lack of any other real defining difference between the major parties, it'd make for an interesting election decision.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

As a lefty, I already preference the Nationals just ahead of the ALP and Libs at the arse end of my Senate ticket. I prefer the Nationals traitors ahead of the ALP's traitors.

Agrarian socialism is better than no socialism at all? ;-)

Interesting in the 1950s in Victoria the Country Party and the Labor Party formed a coalition government to keep the Liberals out!

[zey.livejournal.com]

Agrarian socialism is better than no socialism at all? ;-)

That's the one ;-). They may often be further to the Right than Fred Nile, but, if it weren't for their shoving their hands out all the time, Australia wouldn't be building any infrastructure at all!

Interesting in the 1950s in Victoria the Country Party and the Labor Party formed a coalition government to keep the Liberals out!

Yes, it's always amazed me that a party of country and regional protectionists would ally themselves with the free traders to battle against... a workers party full of protectionists. Daft buggers.