Australian Federal Election 2004

[Filuwaúrdjan]

After checking this on a pendulam thingy... the ALP would win *98* seats out of 150...

That's not that much for a 12 point lead. How much did they lose by last time round?

The Coalition won 17 more seats than the ALP in 2001

[minionofmidas]

After checking this on a pendulam thingy... the ALP would win *98* seats out of 150...

That's not that much for a 12 point lead. How much did they lose by last time round?

The Coalition won 17 more seats than the ALP in 2001

And in votes?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

After checking this on a pendulam thingy... the ALP would win *98* seats out of 150...

That's not that much for a 12 point lead. How much did they lose by last time round?

The Coalition won 17 more seats than the ALP in 2001

And in votes?

ALP: 49%
Coalition: 51%
Two-Party Vote

[minionofmidas]

After checking this on a pendulam thingy... the ALP would win *98* seats out of 150...

That's not that much for a 12 point lead. How much did they lose by last time round?

The Coalition won 17 more seats than the ALP in 2001

And in votes?

ALP: 49%
Coalition: 51%
Two-Party Vote

Dank U!

[M]

I am not sure I understand about the Australian reputation thing. I do try to keep up with world news, and I have not heard of any foreign leaders complaining that Australia has a ruinous policy under Howard that has put a chill in relations. Maybe you are thinking of Israel. Oh wait, most governments in Europe and Asia will ALWAYS hate Israel until it ceases to exist!

[Umengus]

Wich governments in Europe? france? Belgium? please, be not stupid...to be against Sharon and his policy is not to be against Israel. It is the opposite: The policy of Sharon is not good for Israel.

[M]

Yes, France, whose ambassador to London calls Israel  "that sh**tty little country that threatens world peace", and Belgium, which was trying to try Sharon for war crimes while he was Prime Minister (along with Bush and Blair, though they never tried to touch serious rights abusers like NixonNow, Mugabe, Kim...) are defitnitely at the top of that list. At this point it appears clear that most Western European countries would prefer to see the Israelis massacred by the Arabs in a second Holocaust, at which point they could go on TV and look sorry, but not have that annoying problem to deal with anymore.

You know, what you are saying used to explain (in part) why most Europeans were against settlements. Now that Sharon has become a very lefty prime minister and wants to withdraw settlements, France opposes this! In addition, France and other European countries continue to criticize Israel much more strongly for defending itself from terror than they do Arafat's gang of international terrorists from initiating it, or tyrants like NixonNow for the kind of brutal mistreatment of their own people that is common in the Arab world everyday.

Let me quote for you one of Israel's great modern authors, Amos Oz (who is quite liberal). He said, "In the thirties, European graffiti read, Jews to Palestine. Today, European graffiti reads Jews out of Palestine. Don't be here, and don't be there. In other words, don't be".

[Filuwaúrdjan]

M, it was *some* Belgians who wanted to put Sharon on trial, not Belgium

[Umengus]

M, it was *some* Belgians who wanted to put Sharon on trial, not Belgium

exactly. and the law changed and justice said that Sharon (and Arafat because some people wanted this guy on trial too) could not be on trial in Belgium.

Lots of people in Europe (and in USA I think) think that the policy of Sharon is a obstacle for the peace in the worl and it's the case.

The position of France is clear: "road map" for this moment and why not "geneve agreement" after... Security for Israel and the end of occupation in PAlestine.

The policy of Bush, specially in Middle east, is catastrophic and if I was jew in USA, i would vote for Kerry: democrats are better for this.

It's true to say that there is a growth of antisemistic in France and in Belgium. But it's due to muslim minority in these countries. I (and another Belgians and French) don't like muslims and turkish minorities or maroccan minorities or... Please don't confond!

[M]

A French EU Parliamentarian has suggested giving nukes to the Arabs to "equalize" things, and says that is why France correctly tried to give Saddam Hussein a nuclear arsenal in the '70s.

The policy of appeasement was not successful in the thirties. You would not understand this, because 6 million of your people were not murdered. You only had to go one of the more relatively clean occupations in the war, during which many Belgian authorities (not just extreme Flemish nationalists) participated in rounding up Jews and sending them to the crematoria. However, as a Jew, I can tell you that appeasement was, in fact, not successful in WW2 and will not be so again today.

The Dems have a very bad recent track recird on the Middle East, the last good Democratic president on the Middle East was Johnson, who was a big friend of Israel and was close personally to Levi Eshkol. Carter was an unmitigated disaster (he happened to be around when the personal courage of Begin and Sadat led to a great peace, which he had zero to do with), and on his watch Saddam took power in Iraq, Khomeini took power in Iran, and the USSR invaded Afghanistan. Clinton tried to create a state headed by the world's foremost terrorist, which lead to the current situation.

The Geneva plan was never endorsed or planned by the governments of Israel or the PA, it was drawn up by an Israeli lefty political gadfly, Yossi Beilin. I could go find a random Arab and we could draw up our own peace accord and invite our friends to witness the public signing, maybe the local news too. Maybe CNN. It does not matter. It would have no legitimacy.

As for the Road map, the first thing it calls for is a democratic Palestinian govt that does not support terrorism. Until this happens, there is only so much Israel can do. And of course, this can never happen while the klepto-fascist terrorist Arafat governs the PA.

It was Belgium who allowed these people to try to try random world leaders. This was ludicrous, dangerous, and offensive, and thank G-d this law changed.

Which policy of Sharon are you talking about? Sharon's current policy is removing settlements from the Gaza and the northern Samaria, this is being supported by Israel's mainstream left and blocked by the radical right. Are you saying you support the setler's movement, or what?

[Umengus]

-A french EU MP doesn't represent France.

-policy of appeasement was a very great mistake, it's clear but I don't understand your comparaison. Situation is very different.

-During WW2, Belgian authorities were in London. Difficult to kill jews in London... Belgium was not free and authorities were not legitimate by a popular vote. After the war, collaboration were punished very hard.

-I don't know if dems have a good  track about this problem but it's clear that Bush is very bad on this topic. Look at the currently situation.

-The Geneva plan is for me the good solution. I know, he is not legitimate for this moment but if left will can take the power by elections, The Geneva plan will can maybe a reality. I hope that. There is not another solution for this conflict.

-Road map asks stop colonization too . I don't see that. does Arafat support terrorism? maybe but I think that his power is today very weak. Terrorism is stronger than Arafat. How Arafat can stop terrorism if the policy of Sharon is to kill his organisation, his structure, his men,...? I can't understand...

-Don't forget that when sharon deletes settlements in Gaza, he confirms settlements in cisjordanie, on a palestian territory. Not a peace factor.

The best for the future is a victory of left in israelian elections and the application of Geneva plan. I can dream...

[M]

I probably have been assuming your hostility too much. The thinking of America is very different from the situation in Western Europe, and I will try to be more considerate of that as we continue this discussion.

True enough, an EU MP does not represent France. But it's ambassador to London certainly does.

I am glad you recognize the tragedy and horror of past appeasement. But to give in to Arafat's terrorism is similar as to give in to Hitler sabre-rattling.

It was unfair of me to point out the facts of collaboration. I was trying to make a point of how ludicrous it was that Belgium thought they had the right to try anyone at all, anywhere in the world, when it is hardly white as the snow itself.

No world leader has in 60 years have been able to solve this problem, unfortunately. The Bush plan is not perfect, but has not been disastrous, as the Clinton plan was (both Clinton and Barak admit this publicly now). Kerry did not leap to criticize Dean's pro-PLO statements, leaving it to Lieberman alone. So I have trouble trusting him.

Yossi Beilin is not just in the moderate left. Yossi Beilin is in a far left-wing socialist political party with 6 of the 120 Knesset seats. Anyway, the Left will not be reelected this decade.

Are you following current Israeli politics at all? The current hot issue is that Sharon is trying to evacuate all settlements from Gaza and Northern Samaria (far north West Bank), in this he is being supported by the Left and opposed by his own party.

I did not realize you were so unfamiliar with Arafat. Yasser Arafat formed the PLO in 1964, years BEFORE the West Bank and Gaza came into Israel's posession. Arafat was responsible for the Black September incident that nearly destroyed Jordan, blowing up American and European airplanes, the 1972 massacre at the Munich olympics, the Lebanese Civil War, and both intifadas, among other things. Yasser Arafat is the Chairman of the PLO, a terrorist umbrela group which includes Hamas, the Islamic Jihad, and the PFLP. There is no question that Arafat is a terrorist. It's just he only kills Jews, and our blood is cheaper. Always has been.

Sharon did not attach strings to the disengagement plan suggesting the West Bank settlements were permanent. It is entirely possible he could follow the current evacuation with more. If the Palestinians fulfill their part of the bargain.

I am going to tell you an allegorical story I read a while back. See what you think.

In June, 1937, Czechoslovakia, realizing the Europeans were planning to betray them in Munich, launched a surprise tank attack on Nazi Germany. The assault was a phenomenal success. The Czechs captured much of Silesia and the city of Vienna. Many Germans fled these areas as the Czech tanks approached, and became refugees in the rest of Germany. After the war, Germany's military power was wrecked and they no longer posed a threat to the other nations of Europe.

However, all was not well. Germany demanded their land back, and used the Silesian refugees to great political advantage. The British and French were furious at the preemptive action of their ally, and complained bitterly to them. The Soviets also grew cool to them

The Czechs responded indignantly to their new paraih status. They said they had prevented their nation's annihilation. They claimed that their action had prevented a new Great War that would have cost Britain and France millions of lives and left them second-rate powers. They claimed they had spared the Soviet Union a monstrous invasion that would have killed 20-50 million Soviets. They claimed that they had spared the killing of 6 million Jews.

The world scoffed at these accusations. Hitler, of course, had only wanted the Sudetenland. What call would he have to occupy Prague? Britain and France maintained decent realtions with the Germans, and no one had wanted a repeat of the great war, how ludicrous. The USSR maintained that they had in fact been willing to consider a non-aggression pact with the Germans, far from a war. As for the Jews... well, no one cared about them anyway.

[cwelsch]

I dunno, Sharon wants to pull out the settlers and build a wall.  Since every country has a right to border control, the only reason to say Israel has no right to do it must stem from an argument wherein Israel has no right to exist, or at least no right to borders.

Some people will never be happy with Israel, and polls show that a lot of Europeans have anti-Semitic impulses.



Jan 27, 2004 - Jerusalem Post
Poll: Europeans 'tired of Holocaust victim games'
By JENNY HAZAN

Every third European feels Jews should stop playing "Holocaust victim" games, an Italian newspaper reported Monday. The poll came out on the eve of the 60th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, a day Israel this year dedicated to combating anti-Semitism.

The Corriere della Sera survey of nine European countries also found that 46 percent of those interviewed feel Jews are "different," and 71% of them urged Israel to withdraw from the territories. Nine percent of respondents do not "like or trust Jews," and 15% would prefer that Israel not exist.

Just over 68% said they believed Israel has a right to exist but that the government of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is "making the wrong choices."

Forty-eight percent of Europeans polled in Italy, France, Belgium, Austria, Spain, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Germany, and Britain said that Jews have "a particular relationship with money."

In all the countries, anti-Semitic sentiment was positively correlated with anti-Israel sentiment.

The number of people polled and the margin of error were not clear.

Also on Monday, the IDF General Staff held a discussion on the strategic threat posed by Islamic anti-Semitism.

On Sunday, Natan Sharansky, minister-without-portfolio for Diaspora and Jerusalem affairs, presented a report on anti-Semitism in 2003 at a Yad Vashem ceremony marking the designation of January 27 as Israel's National Day to Combat Anti-Semitism.

Unlike the 14 European countries that mark Holocaust remembrance on the 27th of this month, when Auschwitz-Birkenau was liberated by the Red Army, Israel's day of remembrance takes place on the 27th of Nisan, the anniversary of the Warsaw Ghetto revolt.

"For the first time this year, we decided to mark January 27 as the day to combat anti-Semitism because we feel there is a very deep connection between remembering and facing the challenges of today," Sharansky said. "When cemeteries and synagogues are being burned and destroyed, not somewhere in the dark corners of the world, but in the middle of enlightened Europe, it is a problem that belongs to all of us."

The anti-Semitism report indicated a drop in anti-Semitic incidents worldwide alongside a dangerous convergence of traditional anti-Semitism with the new anti-Semitism which demonizes the state of Israel.

At the ceremony, attended by 15 ambassadors and representatives from 14 other embassies, Sharansky and Yad Vashem officials unveiled a lesson plan titled, "Remembering the Holocaust and Combating Xenophobia." The plan's authors hope it will be used in international high school classrooms on Holocaust remembrance days. Sharansky also sent letters to all European education ministries to request their participation in the program.

 

[Platypus]

I herby ban the words "Idrael" and"Palestine" from this thread.

back to the aussie federal election.

New Age poll: Two party preffered:

Labor: 52% (Down 4%)
Coalition: 48% (Up 4%)

[Jens]

I herby ban the words "Idrael" and"Palestine" from this thread.

back to the aussie federal election.

New Age poll: Two party preffered:

Labor: 52% (Down 4%)
Coalition: 48% (Up 4%)

Any idea about the seats? (those FPTP-countries makes it hard to predict anything from % )

[Platypus]

I also ban the word Israel

Seats-Labor by 5.

[Jens]

Seats-Labor by 5.

Looks like quite a victory for ALP - up 5 from down 16.

I also ban the word Israel

Nothing wrong with a slight speach impediment

[struct310]

This must be some good news for Howard.  His party has momentum right now.  Sorta similar to the recent Bush/Kerry polls and I believe that their fates will occur together.  If Bush is elected, I expect Howard to be elected because if Bush is elected that means good news is occuring in Iraq, which helps Howard as well.

[Platypus]

Newspoll:

Coalition: 48%

ALP: 52%

Yay!

[cwelsch]

I'd only support the Australian Liberals because they're the closest thing to me, or least different.  Labor is controlled by, well, Labor.  The Greens anywhere are way into "sustainability" which basically means anti-development and anti-market central planning.  The Democrats don't strike me at all as very hands-off or free market.  The Nationals are too agrarian for my tastes.

I might just vote for the Liberal Democratic Party, the Asutralian version of the LP.  As far as I know they aren't even active in every province/territory.

I'd rather go to New Zealand, work for ACT.  A genuine libertarian party with elected MPs.

[Platypus]

the australian liberal party is socially conservative and economically neutral...it isn't liberal.

[struct310]

the australian liberal party is socially conservative and economically neutral...it isn't liberal.

if thats true then i would be part of ALP.

[Platypus]

the ALP is socially neutal and economically leftist

neither party is great; the ALP is better.

[Manahan]

Similar to the US, our two major parties are not extreme, I guess hughento is right.  The basic difference is that they are not well named, in that our Labor Party (ALP) is nothing like Blair's New Labour in Britain, being factionally divided and socialist leaning.  The right of the party is socially progressive and economically rationalist.  The left of the party is further divided and does have some centre leftists.  The left of the party of dominated by trade unions and the right by academics, which is not a comfortable mix.

The Liberal Party/National Party coaliton is not liberal, but conservative.  They are socially conservative and economically rationalist.  They have proved over the past eight years to be economically progressive, expanding our GDP and reducing our foreign debt.  They have consistently delivered budgetary surpluses.

Our 2004 election can be called at the Prime Minister's discretion with six weeks notice.  My view:

Howard will call the next election after the next Senate session, in order to get the Free Trade Agreement with the USA signed.  He will not wait for the US election, because he is seen as being "tied" to George W Bush and if the GOP goes down, then it is likely that the Libs will go down too.  Therefore, I expect that we will go to the polls on the middle or last Saturday in October.

Regarding the FTA, I think that the ALP will support it in the Senate.  It has already passed the House.   Latham has proved himself inept as a statesman and will be keen to repair the damage that he did with his "troops out by Christmas" policy.  The US relationship is critically important to Australia in the eyes of the electorate, and therefore critical to his election chances.  Trouble is, Latham is in a bind.  If he signs off on the FTA, his own left wing will hate him, and he will have handed an absolute coup to Howard.  If doesn't, everyone will hate him.

My pick:  It is really too close to call reliably, but Howard by a nose.

[raggage]

I'd only support the Australian Liberals because they're the closest thing to me, or least different.  Labor is controlled by, well, Labor.  The Greens anywhere are way into "sustainability" which basically means anti-development and anti-market central planning.  The Democrats don't strike me at all as very hands-off or free market.  The Nationals are too agrarian for my tastes.

I might just vote for the Liberal Democratic Party, the Asutralian version of the LP.  As far as I know they aren't even active in every province/territory.

I'd rather go to New Zealand, work for ACT.  A genuine libertarian party with elected MPs.

ACT is not as libertarian as you believe. New Zealand politics and Australian politics are not as clear cut as US politics is. For example, issues like Abortion are non-issues, and are accepted by both sides. New Zealand is moving forward with a civil union amendment, which will likely pass.

Act tends to be right-leaning first, libertarian second.