Elections in various countries

[rotting bones]

I’ve been particularly impressed by how he’s stood up to the gambling lobby here, which has influence comparable to — if not greater than — the gun lobby in the US.

When the left is hard on anyone, we're being Stalin. When the right does it, it's sound common sense.

Also impressive is the way he’s been willing to accept debate on controversial topics, even when they go against his personal beliefs (he’s a very conservative Christian). That being said, when you ignore the leaders and look at the policies of the two major parties outside gambling, they’re pretty similar, approaching identical. I’ll probably vote first preference for the Liberals, but with a little reluctance.

I don't know anything about policies, but the Liberal leader's rhetoric of "libertarianism and traditionalism" turns me off. I don't like either one of those things.

Traditionally, the Liberal party is, well, liberal — probably neoliberal, insofar as I even know what the term means. It has famously been described as a ‘broad church’. Labor, meanwhile, has skewed left.

Neoliberal usually means socially liberal, fiscally conservative. They oppose social conservatism, and yet work for the benefit of corporations over employees. They are heavily associated with the global financial class.

[rotting bones]

regrettably, I've no idea about stralian politics. are your Labour neolibs ? or is this a good thing?

In my experience, all the smart people are conservative in my generation. All of them. Even when they say they are leftist, they are using "leftism" as a tribal identity marker that has nothing to do with ideology.

Of course, conservatism still doesn't have any arguments, but that doesn't matter. Capitalists have successfully forged a global aesthetic that presents injustice as common sense.

[bradrn]

I’ve been particularly impressed by how he’s stood up to the gambling lobby here, which has influence comparable to — if not greater than — the gun lobby in the US.

When the left is hard on anyone, we're being Stalin. When the right does it, it's sound common sense.

What do you mean?

Also impressive is the way he’s been willing to accept debate on controversial topics, even when they go against his personal beliefs (he’s a very conservative Christian). That being said, when you ignore the leaders and look at the policies of the two major parties outside gambling, they’re pretty similar, approaching identical. I’ll probably vote first preference for the Liberals, but with a little reluctance.

I don't know anything about policies, but the Liberal leader's rhetoric of "libertarianism and traditionalism" turns me off. I don't like either one of those things.

Which leader would that be? Scott Morrison did a little bit of that, but he’s gone now (thank God). Dutton isn’t necessarily much better, but he hasn’t been talking about this stuff too much either. (Also note we don’t really have an organised political tradition of ‘libertarianism’ like the US does.)

Traditionally, the Liberal party is, well, liberal — probably neoliberal, insofar as I even know what the term means. It has famously been described as a ‘broad church’. Labor, meanwhile, has skewed left.

Neoliberal usually means socially liberal, fiscally conservative. They oppose social conservatism, and yet work for the benefit of corporations over employees. They are heavily associated with the global financial class.

Yes, that sounds like the Liberals to me.

[rotting bones]

What do you mean?

For some reason, humans have recently decided that conservatives should have a monopoly on legitimate uses of force in politics. Try to push oppressors around on the left, and you'll drown in an army of shrill narcissists squawking meaningless syllables like "fascist!" and "NPC!"

Which leader would that be? Scott Morrison did a little bit of that, but he’s gone now (thank God). Dutton isn’t necessarily much better, but he hasn’t been talking about this stuff too much either. (Also note we don’t really have an organised political tradition of ‘libertarianism’ like the US does.)

I found what I was thinking of: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominic_P ... _positions

[bradrn]

What do you mean?

For some reason, humans have recently decided that conservatives should have a monopoly on legitimate uses of force in politics. Try to push oppressors around on the left, and you'll drown in an army of shrill narcissists squawking meaningless syllables like "fascist!" and "NPC!"

I still don’t understand what you’re referring to.

Which leader would that be? Scott Morrison did a little bit of that, but he’s gone now (thank God). Dutton isn’t necessarily much better, but he hasn’t been talking about this stuff too much either. (Also note we don’t really have an organised political tradition of ‘libertarianism’ like the US does.)

I found what I was thinking of: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominic_P ... _positions

That’s just him, though — he’s known to be more conservative and traditional than much of the party. And the reason I voted for him is because, unlike most conservatives here, he’s still sensible and knows how to compromise.

[rotting bones]

That’s just him, though — he’s known to be more conservative and traditional than much of the party. And the reason I voted for him is because, unlike most conservatives here, he’s still sensible and knows how to compromise.

In my opinion, it doesn't sound like he's expressing a personal opinion:

He also stated that traditionalism and libertarianism are both "vital and necessary strands of the fabric of conservative thought" and that the Liberal Party should embrace both. He stated opposition to "more social engineering, more welfare handouts... more government spending and intervention in our lives".

To me, this sounds like he thinks society should be an eternal, unchanging block, individuals should be free to screw themselves over, but expect no government handouts.

[bradrn]

To me, this sounds like he thinks society should be an eternal, unchanging block, individuals should be free to screw themselves over, but expect no government handouts.

I think you’re overinterpreting a single (incomplete!) quote. And maybe he thinks society should remain unchanging, but he definitely expects it to do so: he’s allowed a conscience vote on a couple of controversial issues (abortion and euthanasia, IIRC), where the result was a definite ‘yes’ even though he personally voted ‘no’.

[rotting bones]

Disclaimer: As I said before, I understand that all this is rhetoric.

I think you’re overinterpreting a single (incomplete!) quote.

This is a logical objection; a big mistake, since logic is always wrong. After saying that it's the responsibility of individuals to help each other, he goes on:

"... I agree with Churchill when he calls the socialist model the equal distribution of poverty, not wealth. I oppose plans for more social engineering, more welfare handouts and the continual obsession with our rights at the expense of our responsibilities. These toxic ideas signal the death of the opportunity society. I acknowledge and pay tribute to the role that faith has played, particularly our Judeo-Christian heritage, and the role that it will continue to play in our development as a people. Values like compassion, tolerance, diversity and respect for human dignity are all virtues drawn from this rich heritage. And I am passionate about the ideals of a free society, with limited government; I reject calls for more government spending and intervention in our lives. These are the ideals that inform me. These are the ideals that animate my party. These are the ideals of mainstream Australia. And these are the ideals that will make New South Wales number one again. My fourth ideal is opportunity. It is the story of my State. Perhaps no other idea divides the modern Liberal and Labor traditions more than our concept of opportunity. Whilst Labor believes in equality of outcomes, we as Liberals believe in equality of opportunity. Milton Friedman says that "equality of opportunity is an essential component of liberty". I say it is also an essential component of good governance. ... First, we must give businesses the freedom to achieve. It is small businesses that are the engine room of our economy. To that end, we must do all we can to reduce the burdens on them—by cutting red tape, by reducing taxes such as payroll tax and by simplifying regulation. ..."

So the full speech is even worse. Why did you make me read this?

And maybe he thinks society should remain unchanging, but he definitely expects it to do so: he’s allowed a conscience vote on a couple of controversial issues (abortion and euthanasia, IIRC), where the result was a definite ‘yes’ even though he personally voted ‘no’.

Sure, because he's socially liberal. People should help each other. They should be allowed to screw themselves over. What they shouldn't expect is any help from the government. OTOH, the government should help otherwise unprofitable businesses. Combined with the social effects of profit extraction, this doesn't paint a pretty picture.

[bradrn]

logic is always wrong

I would disagree…

So the full speech is even worse.

OK, fair enough.

And maybe he thinks society should remain unchanging, but he definitely expects it to do so: he’s allowed a conscience vote on a couple of controversial issues (abortion and euthanasia, IIRC), where the result was a definite ‘yes’ even though he personally voted ‘no’.

Sure, because he's socially liberal. People should help each other. They should be allowed to screw themselves over. What they shouldn't expect is any help from the government. OTOH, the government should help otherwise unprofitable businesses. Combined with the social effects of profit extraction, this doesn't paint a pretty picture.

Yes, this does sound a bit like what the Liberals do — though keep in mind that Australia already distributes quite a bit of welfare, so our baseline for ‘no help from the government’ is higher than what, say, an American might expect.

[rotting bones]

logic is always wrong

I would disagree…

If there's a grain of truth in that stupid joke, it's that logic only enumerates possibilities. At some point, you need empirical evidence to narrow them down.

[doctor shark]

So, to revive a dormant thread, it appears the Dutch government has fallen over a failure to agree on asylum and nitrogen policy, meaning there's likely to be an election this autumn. And a farmers' interests party (BBB) won the provincial elections in March, so they're in a very good position to take top position when the Dutch go to the polls this fall, though we'll see also if Teflon Mark (Rutte) manages to negotiate a Rutte V cabinet in the aftermath of the coming election.

[Torco]

nitrogen policy ?

[doctor shark]

nitrogen policy ?

Since 2019, the government has been obliged to control greenhouse gas emissions according to the Urgenda court decision. One of these gases that has to be controlled is nitrogen, which is a byproduct of a lot of the farming industry, and the farming industry in the Netherlands is quite large, so there were/are/have been a fuckton of protests (and especially out where I live, which is quite rural). Not all coalition parties were on board with this (particularly the CDA, one of the Christian democrat parties), especially the question of what sectors to target and how much they had to cut down was always a controversial one in the government.

The nail in the coffin, though, appears to really have been the asylum policy. The Netherlands hasn't been coping well with the influx of immigrants, but parties in the coalition have had quite different ideas for what has to be done: Rutte's party (VVD, right-liberal) wanted to cut asylum-seeker numbers, but others like D66 (left-liberals) and CDA wanted to go for better accommodating the influx rather than just slashing numbers. And given the coalition was very fragile to begin with (it took almost a year to negotiate, and with only 77/150 seats in the House of Representatives), anything could be the tipping point.

Based on predictions and the required procedures, the election will probably take place in September or October, given that the parties have to register and submit lists, and that takes about three months. Looking at the polling numbers, though, we may be in for an even longer period without a government once the election does take place...

[Torco]

Ah. nitrogen as in ammonia etcetera. man, parliamentary politics is very different.

[doctor shark]

Ah. nitrogen as in ammonia etcetera. man, parliamentary politics is very different.

So very, especially in a fully proportional representation system like in the Netherlands where there are presently 17 parties in the House of Representatives and you only need ~0.7% to get a seat! In systems like the British or French systems, where a majority is more attainable, it's maybe a bit less volatile (on paper), but I think the Dutch system is quite fun to watch.

Also, in other election things, Luxembourg goes to the polls in October. Current predictions state the current coalition will still have the seats to continue, but whether or not a different party in the coalition gets the premiership is unclear.

[MacAnDàil]

I prefer the idea of the farmer's interest parties allying withe the Greens, like in Latvia and Lithuania, rather than staunchly opposing them, like in the Netherlands.

[Raphael]

And things in Spain seem to be going as badly as expected.

[Torco]

I hear vox + PP cannot form a government... that's something, at least.

[doctor shark]

I prefer the idea of the farmer's interest parties allying withe the Greens, like in Latvia and Lithuania, rather than staunchly opposing them, like in the Netherlands.

In some ways, that would make more sense, but, alas.

Small update: the Dutch election will happen in mid-November. None of the parties in the outgoing coalition will have their current heads lead the party in the election (Mark Rutte, the incumbent PM and VVD lijsttrekker, aka "Teflon Mark" for his seeming ability to weasel his way out of scandals; Sigrid Kaag, long-time diplomat and D66 head who was subject to a stream of abuse after becoming deputy PM; Wopke Hoekstra, CDA head who we really didn't hear much about; and Carola Schouten of the CU, who we also didn't hear much about), so there's a lot of flux. That said, the last opinion poll put the top three parties as the VVD, the BBB (the farmers' interest party that won the provincial elections), and a joint list of the Labor and Green parties (PvdA/GL) . (The last poll actually had PvdA/GL at the top!). There are still going to be a shitload of parties likely to enter the House of Representatives, though, so the coalition talks could be quite painful: there would need to likely be at least three parties in the coalition, probably four: no party right now looks to cross the 30-seat mark (and you need 76 for a government). Fun times ahead...

[Raphael]

Not really about an election, but I'm bringing it up here because it's about the politics of a country that doesn't have its own dedicated politics thread:

Does anyone have any idea what, if anything, the recent going-ons at the Chinese Foreign Ministry mean?