PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Jet Blast (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast-16/)
-   -   War in Australia (any Oz Politics): the Original (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/477678-war-australia-any-oz-politics-original.html)

Captain Sand Dune 22nd Jul 2012 01:33

Dunno, that's pretty important isn't it?:E

And who would you put for your second preference Labor or the Greens?"
Interesting method of questioning.:hmm: How about any other party except Labour or the Greens!!:ok:

Andu 22nd Jul 2012 06:45

Never thought I'd say this, but, living in a (gerrymandered) 'safe' Labor seat, with a total toe rag local member hell bent on making is way to the Labor front bench as soon as he can, I'd vote informal at the next election if I thought there was any chance of my vote ending up preferencing the Greens.

If there's a Greens member handing out how to vote cards at the polling booth, I plan to ask him or her what he or she plans to to with the 16 million Australians who exceed their 7 million "sustainable" population (as clearly stated in their manifesto) - while their cretinous child senator continues to espouse a tearful open border policy.

Fubaar 23rd Jul 2012 02:34

Another 123 "new arrivals" today, escorted by the quaintly misnamed "border protection force" into Christmas Island.

Buster Hyman 23rd Jul 2012 02:51

Clearly, they need a new name...

Border Transition Force?
Border safe passage force?
Border (what border?) Force?

SOPS 23rd Jul 2012 03:36

And what has Ms Gillard got to say about of all of this????:ugh:

allan907 23rd Jul 2012 04:04

And what has Ms Gillard got to say about of all of this????

And then there's the result of the weekend State by election in Victoria where, because the Coalition parties weren't standing and the Greens and the ALP were left to fight it out amongst themselves the Sex Party managed to get 7% of the vote!

They'd get my cross in those circumstances :ok:

Dark Knight 23rd Jul 2012 06:32

The Daily Policy Failure
The Daily Policy Failure: 23 July 2012

AUTHORITIES have intercepted a second asylum seeker boat carrying about 160 people combined.

HMAS Broome intercepted a vessel carrying 123 people on Monday morning.

Authorities later intercepted another carrying 36 people at the Cocos Islands.

The passengers of both boats will be transferred to Christmas Island for security, health and identity checks.

More than 1200 people have arrived on boats so far this month.

Labor budgeted for just 450 arrivals a month.

“Another Boat; Another Policy Failure” J Gillard PM

500N 23rd Jul 2012 06:38

"Clearly, they need a new name...

Border Transition Force?
Border safe passage force?
Border (what border?) Force?"

How about:-

Cross Border Taxi Service ?
Safe Border Taxi Service ?

After all, that is what the Navy seem to be doing.

eagle 86 23rd Jul 2012 06:59

Unnamed but confirmed as a sailor in the RAN has said that the reporting should not be believed - five out of six sailors want to turn the boats around.

hoofie 23rd Jul 2012 07:05

More like Border Protection FARCE

MattGray 23rd Jul 2012 07:36

So much angst over a relative trickle of asylum seekers.

So little understanding of the dimensions of the problem. Australia doesn't have a refugee problem.The whole world has a refugee problem. Some 10 million plus. A large proportion of them according to UNHCR figures being from Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan.

Curiously it appears that the very same minority of Australians which are most vocal today in opposing asylum seekers, belong to exactly the same minority group of true blue believers which cheered on the Howard Liberal government into the misguided and since discredited invasion of the sovereign nation of Iraq.

The vast majority of thinking Australians of all political stripes, some 75%, opposed the Iraq invasion but, despite promising to consult them, Howard did nothing of the sort, contemptuously dismissed them as a "mob" and went ahead anyway, effectively destabilising the region.

That such actions then, have consequences today, is clearly beyond the wit of the vocal minority.

allan907 23rd Jul 2012 07:57

Still, let's not worry about the thousands of genuine, as opposed to economic, refugees left to rot in refugee camps; people to whom we would extend a genuine welcome as a refuge from genuine oppression.

Still, that's Labor and the Greens for you - sticking up for the ill-gotten rights of those who can pay to get ahead. Socialism at work :yuk:

woollcott 23rd Jul 2012 08:13

Matt, you're just wasting you time.....................

Buster Hyman 23rd Jul 2012 08:18

Of course! How stupid we all are. We should have left Saddam in power to carry on with his unique form of "leadership" and there'd be no refugees at all!

If only we hadn't stood with our friends & let our strategic alliances collapse. We'd have been fine on our own, all the way out here in the Pacific. New Zealand would help if we got in a scrap!

Now, if only we could figure out why there are so many Sri Lankans coming. We stayed out of that one didn't we?

Clare Prop 23rd Jul 2012 09:09

ITs a pretty long bow to draw, that John Howard is responsible for the current state of affairs in the ME, I think we can lay that at the blood stained feet of Blair and Bush, though Howard certainly didn't help...whoever was leader of the opposition (Beazley?) would have done the same thing no doubt, do we really have the option to say "NO" to the USA?

I wasn't aware that John Howard invaded Iran or Sri Lanka?

Matt I agree the refugee problem is global, but it becomes our problem when people are abusing the way we support these people and when our government seems to be in cahoots with people traffickers to facilitate their trade at the expense of others perhaps more deserving.

CoodaShooda 23rd Jul 2012 09:22

My memory is not what it was but my recollection is that tha labor opposition of the day supported the assault on Iraq.

But, of course that could have been another lie?

MattGray 23rd Jul 2012 12:01

The Labor opposition of the day led by Simon Crean with K.Rudd as Shadow Foreign Minister definitely did NOT support the assault on Iraq.

Of course Australia has the option to say "NO" to the USA.
Canada did so, stayed out of Iraq and the alliance remains as strong as ever.

Unfortunately Australia was blessed (?) by being led by an old goat who, despite promising not to deploy troops without consulting the electorate, did the opposite, caved in to Bush the Lesser, sold out his country's sovereignty and put Aussie lives at risk. Fortunately the ADF got off lightly there. Not so in Afghanistan - but still way, way less than Canada who after 158 deaths including at least one woman have since wisely withdrawn.

But breaking a promise to the electorate on a matter of such gravity and putting young Diggers lives on the line, makes Gillard's carbon tax faux pas look rather inconsequential doesn't it? :rolleyes:

CoodaShooda 23rd Jul 2012 12:50

We'll just have to agree to disagree but, from the

International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI), which is not known for right wing views:

Australian Labor leader Crean backs Iraq war

By Richard Phillips
1 April 2003

If there were any lingering illusions that the Australian Labor Party (ALP) opposed the US-led invasion of Iraq, they were dispelled last week by the comments of the party’s parliamentary leader Simon Crean.

Formally, the ALP disapproves of a war without United Nations endorsement. As the war was launched, the party supported motions in parliament calling for the immediate withdrawal of the Australian military from the Persian Gulf. Just days later, however, Crean indicated that this “opposition” would remain a purely token affair.

Speaking on ABC television on March 23, Crean declared: “The government’s decision to commit them [the troops] was wrong but we’ve got to be realistic about this. They are there, and what we’ve got to hope for, in the current circumstances, is that their task is completed quickly and successfully.”

In other words, on paper, the ALP continues to declare publicly that the war is “wrong”. In practice, however, it has no intention of insisting on the most elementary demand of any party opposed to the war: the immediate withdrawal of Australian special forces troops, warplanes and naval vessels from the Gulf.

Crean’s comments raised a few voices of protest in Labor’s ranks. Harry Quick, a backbencher from Tasmania, declared that “all hell” would break loose in the ALP caucus. But the predicted battle never materialised. Meetings of the shadow cabinet on March 24 and of the full caucus the following day fell right into line. Labor frontbencher Mark Bishop told the media that Crean’s remarks “have the overwhelming endorsement and support of his colleagues.”

Crean baldly insisted that there had been “no change” in Labor policy. But, when asked by the Greens to support a motion in the Senate calling for the immediate withdrawal of Australian troops from the Middle East, Labor Senators insisted the word “immediate” be changed to “safe”. And in a revealing indication of where the Greens are heading, the party agreed to the change.

This semantic manoeuvre had nothing to do with the well-being of the young men and women sent to invade Iraq—the safest thing for them would be to leave the war zone straight away. It was a signal to the government and its allies in the Bush Administration that Labor, while retaining certain “criticisms,” would not actively press for an end to Australian military involvement. As far Labor is concerned, the troops will only come home when Washington has achieved its aims.

For all its political twists and turns in the last few weeks, Labor has come full circle. The party has never opposed the criminal and illegal US-led war on Iraq on a principled basis. It accepted Washington’s phony pretext—Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction—as good coin, and maintained a polite silence on the Bush administration’s predatory ambitions in the Middle East. The ALP merely wanted UN authorisation. Even then, Crean left open the option for Labor to support a unilateral US strike—in the event of a veto in the UN Security Council.

The outpouring of antiwar opposition in Australian cities in mid-February, as part of the global protest movement, caught Labor by surprise. When Crean told a rally in Brisbane on February 16 that Labor would support an invasion of Iraq if it had UN support, he was loudly jeered. With opinion polls registering a majority opposed to war, Labor attempted to make up ground lost to the Greens by turning up the volume on its antiwar rhetoric—without altering its political line in any fundamental way.

On March 16, when the US and Britain failed to get the backing of the UN Security Council, Labor had to make a decision. A majority in the UN Security Council clearly opposed a second resolution for war. With antiwar protests mounting, Crean declared any assault on Iraq without UN approval was “illegal”. For three days he fulminated against Howard in parliament, at the National Press Club and in a nationally broadcast television address. But as the war unfolded and the media campaign to “support our boys” intensified, Crean retreated, accepting the deployment of troops, and thus the war itself, as a fait accompli.

It was left to Labor frontbencher Bob McMullan to offer a pathetic justification for the party’s complete capitulation. Speaking to the media after the shadow cabinet meeting last week, he declared: “If the Labor Party was the government there would be no Australian troops in Iraq, but the Howard government will not be withdrawing them. So our consistent position is if the government won’t withdraw them we hope they come back safely and as soon as possible.”

In fact the opposite is the case. If Labor were in office, it would be functioning in precisely the same criminal manner as the present government. In 1990, the Hawke Labor government earned the dubious distinction of being among the first in the world to back the first Gulf War and commit Australian forces to it. Over the last decade, the ALP has uncritically backed every intervention and adventure by US imperialism—from Kosovo to Afghanistan—as well as the Howard government’s own neo-colonial foray into East Timor.

If Crean’s criticisms represent anything more, it is a developing nervousness within a layer of the ruling class about the consequences of Bush’s doctrine of pre-emptive war and the shattering of the framework of international relations that has existed since World War II. At one point in his National Press Club address last week, Crean declared that whereas the US was “big enough to look after its own national interests”, Australia and other middle size nations “needed an international framework to operate in.”

Translated into plain English, Crean is warning that, as a minor imperialist power, Australia could lose out if the law of the jungle prevails. The US may be able to nakedly use its military muscle to seize oil reserves in the Middle East, but Australia cannot prosecute its imperialist interests without help. While Howard believes that the best option is to strengthen the Australia-US alliance by doing whatever Washington demands, and hope for future paybacks, other sections of the bourgeoisie are concerned that such a policy could have serious repercussions in Asia, where Australia’s most lucrative markets lie.

The only thing that worries Crean’s critics within the Labor caucus is that he has not achieved the “bounce” in the opinion polls that they believe he could have, if only he had maintained his “antiwar” rhetoric a little longer. Labor is so despised by the majority of working people that Howard is still far ahead of Crean in the polls as preferred prime minister.

MattGray 23rd Jul 2012 12:54

Day 23 of Tony's scary great big new toxic tax and despite all the dire predictions the sky still hasn't fallen.

And what do we find out there in the real world?
Westpac Index of Consumer Sentiment is up 3.7%

:D :ok:

CoodaShooda 23rd Jul 2012 13:00

I thought the statistical variation in these surveys was +/- 5%?

Or was the poll conducted at local pokies venues. :E

But, while we're discussing statistics...

LAST week critics of Julia Gillard said that if voter polls did not lift she should step aside as prime minister.

The latest Newspoll in The Australian on Tuesday shows that things have just got worse - Labor has dropped below 30 per cent for the first time in three months.

Only 28 per cent, two percentage points off its record low, of voters would tick the Labor box, compared with 31 per cent in early July. Meanwhile the coalition vote slipped two points to 46 per cent.

But at the same time, voter satisfaction with Opposition Leader Tony Abbott is at its worst level on record - 30 per cent - despite the coalition maintaining a commanding lead of 56 per cent to 44 per cent on two party-preferred terms.

There is a silver lining for Mr Abbott: he has extended his lead over Ms Gillard as preferred prime minister to four points - 40 per cent to 36 per cent.

The poll shows that Australians can't be made to change their views despite the continuing shower of cash handouts from the government to middle Australia.

Last week, government whip Joel Fitzgibbon, a Kevin Rudd supporter, told ABC television that if leaders stay unpopular for long enough "they'll inevitably stop leading the party".

The Australian says that while Ms Gillard retains strong caucus support, her critics argue that if polls do not improve over coming months, she should be asked to stand aside.

All times are GMT. The time now is 17:28.

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.