Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board Forum Index
 The RulesThe Rules FAQFAQ
   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   CalendarCalendar   SearchSearch 
Log inLog in RegisterRegister
 
Chinese imperialism and future Australian sovereignty

Users browsing this topic:0 Registered, 0 Hidden and 0 Guests
Registered Users: None

Post new topic   Reply to topic    Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board Forum Index -> Victoria Park Tavern
 
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 33, 34, 35 ... 48, 49, 50  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
David Libra

I dare you to try


Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda

PostPosted: Tue Mar 16, 2021 4:51 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

We talk about government subservience to China as if it's a future threat, but in some ways it's already here:

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/mar/16/avoid-media-spats-with-china-and-protect-australian-interests-julie-bishop-says

Quote:
Also on Monday the Australian Senate blocked debate on a motion that would have recognised China’s actions against the Uighur Muslim minority as genocide.

That is despite the Canadian and Dutch parliaments recently adopting such motions, and the Biden administration also upholding a similar determination made by the former Trump administration.

The motion, proposed by independent senator Rex Patrick, stated that the Senate agreed that the People’s Republic of China’s treatment of the Uighurs in the Xinjiang region “constitutes the crime of genocide”.

If passed, the motion would also have called on the PRC “to immediately end torture and abuse in detention centres; abolish its system of mass internment camps, house arrest and forced labour; cease all coercive population control measures; and end the persecution of Uighurs and other religious and ethnic minorities in Xinjiang and elsewhere in China”.

The Senate denied the motion formality – a step often taken to avoid votes on complex foreign policy matters.

That prompted Patrick to seek to suspend standing orders to allow the motion to be debated, a bid that was blocked by the major parties. But the Greens and crossbenchers Jacqui Lambie and Sterling Griff backed Patrick’s attempt to bring on debate of the motion.


No-one would be surprised by the ALP and Liberal Party joining forces to block this, but I guess it's mildly interesting that the two One Nation senators didn't sign on. Adds to my suspicion that the far right actually admire Chinese-style authoritarianism and would like to see it here.

_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger  
5 from the wing on debut 



Joined: 27 May 2016


PostPosted: Tue Mar 16, 2021 9:47 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

Authoritarianism actually has a lot going for it when important decisions have to be made and things have to be achieved. In China a decision is made and it is carried out. Dissent isn't tolerated.

In the free west we are too busy debating the big issues - Should I be ashamed to be white? Was Meaghan lying? Are you racist if you think that she was? How many sexes are there now? Should chicks with dicks use the mens or womens toilets?


In theory a benevolent dictator would be the most effective form of government. In reality, that has never existed.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
David Libra

I dare you to try


Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda

PostPosted: Tue Mar 16, 2021 9:58 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, yes, I think that pretty much sums up the One Nation position – certainly, from the few people I've spoken to about this topic who vote for them. Western freedom is weak and degenerate, and what we really need is a strong leader to whip us into shape. There's another word for that mindset, but I must admit I've temporarily forgotten – I think it starts with the letter 'F'?
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger  
5 from the wing on debut 



Joined: 27 May 2016


PostPosted: Tue Mar 16, 2021 10:17 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

Are you saying that you have actually spoken to more than one person that has voted for One Nation? I find that hard to believe.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
5 from the wing on debut 



Joined: 27 May 2016


PostPosted: Tue Mar 16, 2021 10:30 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

I have always taken the Winston Churchill position in relation to democracies. I won't repeat it because every one knows what it is.

Democracies have big failings though, especially here with only 3 year election cycles. The concern of federal governments and opposition isn't about policy, that's just generally a side issue. The concern is about gaining, and holding, power. With all of the big issues on the table at the moment, what is taking up the federal politician's time? A relatively minor side issue relating to Porter (that is, in the context of the issues surrounding us as a country). Great PR for the ALP, so that's what the focus is.

When I was a uni student in the early 80's one of the degrees I completed was in economics. The lefties there were pushing strongly for a broad based consumption tax - that is, a GST. The right was against it. Fast forward to Hewson flipping the Libs to the other side and proposing a GST. That really caught the left and the ALP by surprise as it is what they had wanted. So what did they do? They opposed it, and won an election by doing so. Maybe my cynicism is shining through, but we have a system here where the politicians main concerns are power and then pensions schemes and everything they do is directed at that.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
David Libra

I dare you to try


Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda

PostPosted: Tue Mar 16, 2021 11:06 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

5 from the wing on debut wrote:
Are you saying that you have actually spoken to more than one person that has voted for One Nation? I find that hard to believe.


At least two, would you believe – and yes, about this very subject! One is a long-time work colleague, and another one is ... somewhat more intimately related. In both cases, their enthusiasm for the Chinese model of government seems to far outstrip Hanson's own appreciation for the people of that continent back when she first entered the political scene. But one suspects that indiscriminately locking up and torturing Muslims gets her, as well as their, tick of approval.

I certainly don't disagree about the problems with our democratic system, although I don't think shifting power away from the people and towards governments is the answer. There are so many ways in which power is corrupted – through corporate political donations, which in my view should be banned altogether, foreign and domestic alike; national security laws that legally shield our leaders from accountability over crucial matters of criminal punishment, international relations and civil liberties; the lack of appetite for setting up a commission against corruption; and, yes, aspects of the party system that allow the promotion of wholly unsuitable people to the top (and in that realm, the question of whether a person who may have committed a violent rape should be attorney-general seems less irrelevant). All of these problems would be made significantly worse by a system with less transparency and accountability, no matter how 'benevolent' its policy agenda, and I think China – with its untouchable ruling class made up of the sons and cronies of party leaders – is a case in point.

Tinkering with electoral cycles may or may not help, and perhaps a more honest and regulated news media – as Labor tried to push for unsuccessfully in 2013 – would help, but otherwise I think the failings of our political system are all obvious, and none of them relate to the average punter having too much say. Indeed, my advice to the progressive parties on my side of politics would be to pay more attention to the basic day-to-day needs of ordinary people, and remember that the core of any successful left politics has to be material.

_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger  
pietillidie 



Joined: 07 Jan 2005


PostPosted: Fri Mar 19, 2021 7:07 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Like it or not, China very smartly and correctly simply points the US finger back at itself. Way too easy:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/19/us-china-talks-alaska-biden-blinken-sullivan-wang

Don't get me wrong, that's the trivially easy part of the task for China, but it will take many global voices with actual credibility — and the US has very little — to nudge a more worldly China.

You only miss the high ground when you can't wield it anymore — even hypocritically. What else is there apart from doing the better thing in the world? Religion? Party loyalty? Tradition? Race? Nope, there's nothing but perceived high ground.

On an optimistic note, at least it's agreed by all sides there is a high ground to be had somewhere. China feels shame, the US feels loss, and both lash out because they know they don't have the high ground. The louder the voice, the lower the ground.

_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Tannin Capricorn

Can't remember


Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania

PostPosted: Fri Mar 19, 2021 10:42 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

"Lefties in favour of a broad-based consumption tax."

Bullshiite of the highest order. No left-winger anywhere, ever was in favour of an increase in regressive taxation. (Any person in favour of an increase in a regressive tax to replace a progressive one is not left wing. The whole reason for being of the left wing viewpoint is that it favours a fairer, more even distribution of wealth and labour and income. Regressive taxes are the opposite of that and, by their very nature, cannot ever be "left wing" policies.

_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives!
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
pietillidie 



Joined: 07 Jan 2005


PostPosted: Sat Mar 20, 2021 8:14 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

^Yeah, that was a bizarre reworking of history. Most of the left rejected it on the grounds you mention, which is why it failed to become left policy, contrary to the earlier poster's parallel universe experience. On faction does not a party make.
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Tannin Capricorn

Can't remember


Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania

PostPosted: Sat Mar 20, 2021 12:07 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Come to think of it, I also studied economics when I was at university. This was the mid-80s. And I remember the other economics students. In particular, I remember their political views: they were .... well, "rabid" would be too mild a word for it. An average one was hard right, then you got the extreme rightists, and what they probably thought were "lefties", who were straight-down-the-line right-wingers.
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives!
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
pietillidie 



Joined: 07 Jan 2005


PostPosted: Sat Mar 27, 2021 6:04 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

An update on the Biden approach:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/26/us/politics/biden-china-democracy.html

_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
pietillidie 



Joined: 07 Jan 2005


PostPosted: Sun Mar 28, 2021 3:08 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

The Xinjiang cotton boycott:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/world-asia-china-56535822

If something is on the nose let it be judged accordingly, but now let's apply some consistency to our actions.

_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
5 from the wing on debut 



Joined: 27 May 2016


PostPosted: Mon Mar 29, 2021 10:16 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

Tannin wrote:
"Lefties in favour of a broad-based consumption tax."

Bullshiite of the highest order. No left-winger anywhere, ever was in favour of an increase in regressive taxation. (Any person in favour of an increase in a regressive tax to replace a progressive one is not left wing. The whole reason for being of the left wing viewpoint is that it favours a fairer, more even distribution of wealth and labour and income. Regressive taxes are the opposite of that and, by their very nature, cannot ever be "left wing" policies.


The fact that you and others within your echo chamber do not have knowledge of something does not mean that it did not occur. I understand that this is how internet forums work though. If you don't like something just say it's not true and set out senseless arguments to support a false conclusion. Some may be swayed by what you have said, but then children of kindergarten age are quite trusting.

I have no dog in the fight, I despise politicians and the fools that have strong political allegiances but I stand by my comments. I am certainly not going to be cowed by someone that most likely never studied the topic in question and has such a limited knowledge of history.

Economics wasn't my interest but I thought that as I was already at uni a double degree wasn't much more work than one degree, so that's what I did. You may care to pretend the world is as you would like it to be, but unfortunately for you, it isn't. Can you not recall the ALP faction in support of GST and the battle that took place between Treasurer Keating and PM Hawke over the issue? Apparently not.

Part of the argument of the "left" back then was that due to tax minimisation/avoidance systems and structures, the "rich" were not paying sufficient income tax, so they were being subsidised by the poor who did not have those options available tom them. They wanted to catch the rich on expenditure so a GST was their proposed way of doing it.

Of course, your response will be a simple "bullshit". Then you will perform a google search to look for information in relation to a topic in which you have no first hand knowledge.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
David Libra

I dare you to try


Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda

PostPosted: Mon Mar 29, 2021 11:10 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

I think your problem, 5, is associating elements of the Labor Party with "the left". Whatever the rights or wrongs of the GST, it was never a "left" issue and never had the left's support. As it happens, there was rather a lot that Hawke/Keating considered or implemented that had nothing to do with progressive or redistributive economics, and indeed paved the way for the Australian variant of the Western neoliberal turn of the 1980s–1990s that we usually associate with conservative figures like Reagan and Thatcher.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger  
5 from the wing on debut 



Joined: 27 May 2016


PostPosted: Mon Mar 29, 2021 11:33 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

David wrote:
I think your problem, 5, is associating elements of the Labor Party with "the left". Whatever the rights or wrongs of the GST, it was never a "left" issue and never had the left's support. As it happens, there was rather a lot that Hawke/Keating considered or implemented that had nothing to do with progressive or redistributive economics, and indeed paved the way for the Australian variant of the Western neoliberal turn of the 1980s–1990s that we usually associate with conservative figures like Reagan and Thatcher.


That is quite condescending David.
I have a problem do I?
It seems to me that there is a problem here with people having no knowledge, or are just surmising, in relation to matters that they are commenting upon.
I can tell you for a fact what the position of the left was, because I sat there and listened to them argue with the right, about this very topic. It formed part of the syllabus in relation to tax reform.
What were you doing during that period in the early/mid 1980's which gives you your great insight into the issue?
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board Forum Index -> Victoria Park Tavern All times are GMT + 11 Hours

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 33, 34, 35 ... 48, 49, 50  Next
Page 34 of 50   

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum



Privacy Policy

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group