Zompist Bboard Again

Welp, the 2022 Australian federal election has been all but confirmed, which means… yes, it’s the start of unofficial election campaign season! (Officially the parties only declare it a week or so before the election to avoid all those pesky restrictions on campaigning.) Allow me to introduce our contestants this time round:

• The Liberal party (who aren’t), currently in government. Traditionally the party of the middle- and upper-class, they now are the party of the permanently befuddled. They have no policies beyond blatant corruption and pork-barrelling, and for this reason have ended up revolving totally around the current Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, about whom much more will be said later.
• The National party, currently in coalition with the Liberals, as they’ve been for the past century or so. Traditionally the party of the farmers, they are now the party of the idiots. They are especially concerned about global warming and COVID-19, and are extremely worried about all the terrible things which might happen if they were prevented. Their permanent Coalition goes a good way towards explaining why the Liberals are being dragged towards the far-right.
• The Labor party (sic), currently in opposition. We don’t yet know exactly who they intend to be the party for, because it looks ungrateful for the opposition to criticise the government while they are ‘managing’ a pandemic (ha ha). What policies they have so far are totally innocuous things like a (small) emissions target and more university spots. In theory this is so the Liberals can’t mount a scare campaign, though of course they’ll try anyway. Their current leader is Anthony Albanese.
• The Green party. Even more invisible than Labor: their most recent contribution to the national debate was made when one of their senators (a woman) launched a horribly sexist attack against a Liberal senator (also a woman).
• The United Australian Party, slogan ‘Make Australia Great’. They have come to recent prominence for somehow being even more idiotic than the Nationals. They are also well-known for their ads in garish yellow and black, advertising ‘FREEDOM FREEDOM FREEDOM FREEDOM FREEDOM FREEDOM’. (This is a direct quote. And that’s not even the worst of them!) They used to be led by Clive Palmer, but now are led by the former Liberal Craig Kelly.

Of course, this is politics, so the personalities are even more important than the politics. And what personalities! We have, in no particular order:

• Scott Morrison (nicknames: ‘Scotty from Marketing’, ‘the Liar from the Shire’), in theory the leader of our country. In practice, he crawls away and hides whenever he might be required to do any leading. This is not a metaphor: he managed the Black Summer bushfires of 2019–20 by taking a holiday to Hawaii. The charitable person might see Morrison’s leadership as an application of the ancient Chinese principle of 無為 wúwéi, that the state will manage itself if the leader does nothing. Unfortunately, this principle falls down a bit when you need to oversee a pandemic, including lockdowns. He won the last election by very vigorously proposing no policies whatsoever, and marketing them very well. The one concrete thing he did propose was a car-park fund which, by a curious coincidence, had every single one of its car-parks located in marginal electorates. That election, he was also instrumental in handpicking Craig Kelly for preselection for the division of Hughes. To give him credit, though, he has a rare talent in diplomacy: this year he managed to upset China, France and the US — all at the same time!
• Anthony Albanese, his opponent for this election. As mentioned earlier, we know practically nothing about him. I don’t even know how to pronounce his surname. (/ælbəˈnizi/, I think, unless it’s /ælbəˈniz/.)
• Barnaby Joyce, the current leader of the Nationals for the third time. (The first time, he was kicked out after discovering he had non-Australian citizenship. The second time, he was kicked out after they discovered he had an affair with his staffer.) A very strong advocate for local property ownership and Christian family values. Joyce has been instrumental in preventing any and all Australian action on global warming.
• Clive Palmer, our very own wannabe Donald Trump. Of course, there are differences. For instance, Trump went bankrupt in casinos, whereas Palmer nearly went bankrupt in mining. Nonetheless he is prominent today for the party he founded, the United Australian Party (formerly Palmer United).
• Craig Kelly was formerly a Liberal — handpicked by Morrison, even! — but resigned after Morrison had the temerity to point out that it wasn’t completely fair to label masks as ‘child abuse’. Now the proud leader of the United Australian Party, where he can promote his views uninhibited by other politicians, the media, or common sense.
• Gladys Berejiklian was the former Liberal Premier of the state of New South Wales (NSW), until they launched a corruption commission into her various activities. Most famously she managed to knock down an entire sports stadium and then couldn’t find anyone to rebuild it, but what they’re really interested in is her relationship with corrupt NSW MP Darryl Maguire. Despite all this, however, she has been extraordinary in her leadership through the crises of the past few years, and even after resigning has a recognition and popularity which few other politicians anywhere in the world could equal. For this reason, she will almost certainly become a significant player in the upcoming election.
• Dan Andrews, Annastacia Palaszczuk /ˈpæləʃeɪ/ and Mark McGowan, the current Labor Premiers for the states of Victoria, Queensland and West Australia respectively. Known for their handling of the pandemic: the first for somehow managing to be totally ineffective despite restrictions, and the other two for locking their borders very very tightly to avoid it. Morrison has wasted a significant amount of breath railing against the evil Labor Premiers. (And you may parse that noun phrase however you want.)

Of course, the election campaign hasn’t really gotten started yet, so I don’t have much more to say. I am sure that before the election I will end up posting further updates on the idiocy of politics.

Thank you, bradrn! I admit I'm a bit surprised by this - a had had the impression, based on some stuff I'd heard, that Australia handled the pandemic relatively well. And I would have expected your Liberal and Labor parties to stand for, or pretend to stand for, the standard packages of center-right and center-left ideas and policies, respectively.

bradrn wrote: ↑Mon Dec 06, 2021 7:50 am(Officially the parties only declare it a week or so before the election to avoid all those pesky restrictions on campaigning.)

No comment here, just wanted to highlight that sentence.

advertising ‘FREEDOM FREEDOM FREEDOM FREEDOM FREEDOM FREEDOM’. (This is a direct quote.

Chanted to the tune of the Jaws theme?

He won the last election by very vigorously proposing no policies whatsoever, and marketing them very well.

And here I thought the cynical view of multiparty electoral politics was that people win elections by proposing stupid and/or horrible policies. So it turns out that's the idealistic view?

Barnaby Joyce, the current leader of the Nationals for the third time. (The first time, he was kicked out after discovering he had non-Australian citizenship. The second time, he was kicked out after they discovered he had an affair with his staffer.) A very strong advocate for local property ownership and Christian family values.

You've got those, too? Really? I thought your right-wing troglodytes would focus on bigotry and making poor people suffer, and leave the "family values" stuff to their friends in the US? What happened to "Thank God we got the convicts and they got the Puritans"?

Morrison has wasted a significant amount of breath railing against the evil Labor Premiers. (And you may parse that noun phrase however you want.)

Hm, is that the answer to my earlier question about relatively solid Australian pandemic policies?

(I'd love to write an equally entertaining post on the incoming German coalition government, but unfortunately a) German politics isn't all that entertaining most of the time and b), probably related to a), I don't really follow it all that much, beyond keeping track of who's running and who's doing how well in elections and occasionally which policies get changed.

Years ago, I had a meetup with someone from the USA whom I had gotten to know through the internet. When I told her that I found US politics pretty entertaining, she responded that that was to be expected, since it's a TV show. I responded that German politics is more like a PTA.)

Raphael wrote: ↑Mon Dec 06, 2021 8:38 am Thank you, bradrn! I admit I'm a bit surprised by this - a had had the impression, based on some stuff I'd heard, that Australia handled the pandemic relatively well.

Oh, we did handle it extremely well. That’s entirely thanks to Berejiklian and the other Premiers — the federal government is most noted for an attempt to prevent lockdowns at the beginning of the pandemic. (They did arrange funding for people temporarily out of work though, the one completely positive thing they’ve done in their entire term.)

And I would have expected your Liberal and Labor parties to stand for, or pretend to stand for, the standard packages of center-right and center-left ideas and policies, respectively.

In theory, that’s exactly what they stand for. But they seem to have lost their way a bit. (See also my comments below.)

advertising ‘FREEDOM FREEDOM FREEDOM FREEDOM FREEDOM FREEDOM’. (This is a direct quote.

Chanted to the tune of the Jaws theme?

No, arranged into a nice triangle on the newspaper page.

He won the last election by very vigorously proposing no policies whatsoever, and marketing them very well.

And here I thought the cynical view of multiparty electoral politics was that people win elections by proposing stupid and/or horrible policies. So it turns out that's the idealistic view?

These past few years have been an aberration. It used to be that one party proposed one set of policies, the other party proposed another set of policies, and based on these policies they dragged each other kicking and screaming through the election season until we put them out of our misery by voting for one of them. (In other words, a typical party system.) But this was all overturned by Morrison’s revolutionary discovery that, if one stands for election with no policies at all, one can run scare campaigns on every policy the opposition has, while they can’t do the same to you. Of course, it’s a bit difficult to govern without policies, but it did get them into government, so it looks like the Liberals are going to run on the same ‘platform’ again. It also doesn’t help that the Coalition (as we call the combination of Liberal+National) covers an extraordinarily wide range of views, ranging from centre-left to far-right, but the ‘party line’ (insofar as it has one) is becoming increasingly far-right these days — so there are really very few policies in the first place which will satisfy all Coalition MPs. Labor has similar problems, though it’s not so far gone yet. Personally I’m hoping that Labor wins the next election and actually does something with it, while it and the Coalition disintegrate into smaller parties at some point so we’ll actually have a sensible party system again.

Barnaby Joyce, the current leader of the Nationals for the third time. (The first time, he was kicked out after discovering he had non-Australian citizenship. The second time, he was kicked out after they discovered he had an affair with his staffer.) A very strong advocate for local property ownership and Christian family values.

You've got those, too? Really? I thought your right-wing troglodytes would focus on bigotry and making poor people suffer, and leave the "family values" stuff to their friends in the US? What happened to "Thank God we got the convicts and they got the Puritans"?

Hah, yes, we’ve been a great importer of troglodatry from the US. (And vice versa: George Christensen, technically an MP for Queensland even though he spends the majority of each year around the less salubrious parts of Manila, was last seen expounding on the evils of Australian COVID-19 policies to the good folks at Infowars.) Our politicians have become very concerned recently about what children might be taught at school and what people might do in their private time. Thankfully this train of thought isn’t quite so prominent over here (we’re a bit more left-wing than the US), and our conservatism is still very much based around global warming denial, dislike of Islam and—most importantly—giving poor people not one cent more than it says in the law. (That they temporarily raised the dole last year can be considered a minor miracle. That they let it go back down again cannot.)

Morrison has wasted a significant amount of breath railing against the evil Labor Premiers. (And you may parse that noun phrase however you want.)

Hm, is that the answer to my earlier question about relatively solid Australian pandemic policies?

To an extent, though as with everything this can be disputed. Though I may be biased, it is in general clear that the state which handled the pandemic best was my own state of NSW, thanks to Berejiklian — a Liberal premier. I honestly have no idea how she did it, but she somehow managed to keep COVID-19 mostly under control while avoiding complete lockdowns until as late as possible. On the other hand, along with Andrews she also prevented it from getting into Australia by imposing lockdown early in the pandemic, against the wishes of our so-called ‘PM’. Past this initial lockdown, the other states mostly focussed on avoiding COVID-19 through extraordinarily tight border restrictions to other states. This has not been an especially popular policy amongst those families who live on the border, but people within the relevant states seem to like it. (NSW has had border restrictions also, but not necessarily to the same degree.) The states with the tightest restrictions have been West Australia and Queensland — both with Labor Premiers.

Victoria is a special case. Its Labor Premier Dan Andrews has not been too popular even amongst regular Victorians, due to his long, hard lockdowns which seemed to have comparatively little effect on COVID-19 — he has been nicknamed ‘Dictator Dan’. (Of course, he’s even less popular amongst the antivaxxer contingent, who have recently taken to parading around Melbourne with gallows.) For whatever reason, Victoria has been very bad at controlling COVID-19 over the past two years, compared to other states. For instance, the most recent Delta wave came into NSW first, with a maximum of ~1500 cases/day; despite this giving Victoria a month of warning, it then rose to a peak there of >2000 cases/day, and hasn’t yet really come down below 1000 cases/day. Part of this is, as I mentioned, the large antivaxxer contingent, but part of it is surely just bad management.

Hm, what did I post here back in April?

Raphael wrote: ↑Wed Apr 21, 2021 6:44 am

The once mighty but now pretty small center-left SPD had already decided a while ago that their nominee would be Federal Finance Minister and former Mayor of Hamburg Olaf Scholz, but given his party's position in the polls, few people take him seriously as a contender for the Chancellorship.

Sometimes, I don't mind being proven wrong. Scholz just took the oath.

This means that Angela Merkel has now retired voluntarily after a long time in office, which is quite an achievement for a parliamentary leader. Usually, heads of government under parliamentary systems sooner or later get dragged from their offices kicking and screaming - either they lose an election outright, or their own party turns against them, or their coalition falls apart, or there's some kind of big scandal, or some combination of these.

Raphael wrote: ↑Wed Dec 08, 2021 5:11 am Sometimes, I don't mind being proven wrong. Scholz just took the oath.

Yes, who'd have believed that back then?

Raphael wrote: ↑Wed Dec 08, 2021 5:11 am This means that Angela Merkel has now retired voluntarily after a long time in office, which is quite an achievement for a parliamentary leader. Usually, heads of government under parliamentary systems sooner or later get dragged from their offices kicking and screaming - either they lose an election outright, or their own party turns against them, or their coalition falls apart, or there's some kind of big scandal, or some combination of these.

She's indeed the first post-war German Chancellor who leaves at a time of their own choosing (and I don't think there were many examples before WW II as well).

Looks like Germany has a new leader of the opposition (though, unlike in Westminster systems, that's not an "official" position here). Slick business conservative Friedrich Merz got almost two thirds of the votes cast in the vote among all CDU members for party chairperson. It's not official yet - he still needs to be formally elected by a party convention.

Merz was an up-and-coming young (at the time and by the standards of politics) CDU politician back in the early 2000s. Then, a while after Merkel had become Chancellor in 2005, he suspended his political career for the time being and cashed in in the private sector, getting all kinds of well-paid positions on corporate boards and the like. He returned to politics a few years ago, when Merkel announced her plans to retire, and has been trying to become CDU leader ever since.

OK, I must admit to a clear bias here: I just can't stand the man. The fact that he now has a decent chance of becoming Chancellor in a couple of years doesn't make me happy at all.

Who else thought the "Boris Bubble" was a thing of genius?

alice wrote: ↑Fri Dec 17, 2021 12:45 pm Who else thought the "Boris Bubble" was a thing of genius?

I just looked up that by-election on Wikipedia. Wait, the swing was what? And there were four miniscule far-right parties challenging the Tories from the right? Anyway, shouldn't this be in the British politics thread?

An update on the French presidential election.

The current favorites for the second round are Emmanuel Macron (who, I think, needs no particular introduction) and Valérie Pécresse (les Républicains).

Valérie Pécresse came out ahead in the Républicains primary -- the Républicains being the more traditional, less fascist right-wing. (They like to change party name every so often. At some point someone thought imitating the GOP was a good idea, I suppose. It's still Chirac and Sarkozy's party.)

Pécresse is president of the Ile de France région (the one that includes Paris.) I haven't really taken notice of anything she did. She's in charge of public transportation, which is kind of a very big deal around here and as far as I can see she hasn't done anything in that department. (It's still pretty much a cross between a rat's armpit and Last Train For Busan.)
I don't quite see how she'll be any different from Macron, but I guess even right wingers are getting tired of that smug face.
I'll be happy not to have a fascist in the second round for a change, though, so I guess keep up the good work.

After that come our two fascist candidates: Marine Le Pen and Eric Zemmour. Le Pen's a fascist, Zemmour's somewhat more of a fascist. People think he's something of an intellectual too. He likes to rant at lenght on how women are castrating and bemoaning the loss of masculinity, and as often happens, he's himself a very unimpressive little runt.

Zemmour is said to have a solid chance of making it to the second round. Myself, I don't think he will, though for a pretty sick reason: Zemmour is Jewish, and we have quite a few antisemites around.

Then come three left-wing candidates. Jean-Luc Mélenchon was dubbed 'angry leftist grandpa' on Twitter a few years back and I don't have much to add to that description. He had a pretty strong campaign back in 2017, but I think he's been acting pretty stupid ever since. Then we got Yannick Jadot for the Greens. (No opinion: one problem is that Jadot's got all the charisma of an overcooked clam) , and then Anne Hidalgot (Parti Socialiste). Hidalgo's been an okayish Mayor of Paris. She's been heavily attacked on social media because Paris's very dirty. (True, but not particularly Hidalgo's fault. Paris has always been dirty.); she also suffers from the poor reputation and general performance of the socialists.

No left-wing candidate has any particular chance of making it to the second round, or even doing well. Everyone on the left wishes for a single left-wing candidacy. No candidate is ever going to quit though. (All our left-wing parties hate each other).
A grassroots movement called the citizen primary has called for a left-wing primary. No declared candidate except Hidalgo is interested. Former minister Christiane Taubira has expressed interest and hinted that she might be candidate herself. (I like Taubira, I think she's got the necessary charisma. But she doesn't have much of a chance either.)

I should mention other minor candidates: Fabien Roussel for the Communists, Arnaud Montebourg (a former left-wing minister who runs on a particularly unclear platform) and two far left candidates (Philippe Poutou and Nathalie Artaud.)

All in all the left won't do very well, and what votes it gets will get scattered across many small candidates.

Then we get a host of minor, little fascists: Nicolas Dupont-Aignan (fascist), Jean Lassalle (maybe fascist; it's hard to figure out what he stands for, or even what he says, most of the time, because of a heavy accent and neuroleptic medication) and Florian Philippot (conspiracy nut/antivax/fascist.)

The election is in late April (first round) / early may (second round). I don't plan to vote, for reasons that should now be pretty clear.

Thank you for that detailed guide, Ares Land!

Ares Land wrote: ↑Mon Dec 20, 2021 3:24 am I don't quite see how she'll be any different from Macron, but I guess even right wingers are getting tired of that smug face.

Slightly different priorities when it comes to what she's willing to pay lip service to without doing anything about it?

I should mention other minor candidates: Fabien Roussel for the Communists, Arnaud Montebourg (a former left-wing minister who runs on a particularly unclear platform) and two far left candidates (Philippe Poutou and Nathalie Artaud.)

What do Roussel, Poutou, and Artaud think they have to offer that Mélenchon, who seems to be the main far-left candidate, doesn't have to offer?

Raphael wrote: ↑Mon Dec 20, 2021 10:50 am Thank you for that detailed guide, Ares Land!

No problem. I'd say 'hope that clears that up' if I thought it could be cleared up.

Ares Land wrote: ↑Mon Dec 20, 2021 3:24 am I don't quite see how she'll be any different from Macron, but I guess even right wingers are getting tired of that smug face.

Slightly different priorities when it comes to what she's willing to pay lip service to without doing anything about it?

You got it.

I should mention other minor candidates: Fabien Roussel for the Communists, Arnaud Montebourg (a former left-wing minister who runs on a particularly unclear platform) and two far left candidates (Philippe Poutou and Nathalie Artaud.)

What do Roussel, Poutou, and Artaud think they have to offer that Mélenchon, who seems to be the main far-left candidate, doesn't have to offer?

Mélenchon and his party, la France Insoumise, aren't really that far left. Their platform is comparable to the PS platform in the 90s. Honestly, there's a lot I can agree with in there, and I'm kind of a moderate, on this board at least.
(I mostly disagree on Europe and international policy, not economics. The thing is, under our current constitution, international policy is the President's real job.)

So there's plenty of room to the left. The Communists still mention the class struggle somewhere, I think. (Also, Mélenchon tried to take them over and they resent it.) Poutou and Artaud are both from historically Trotskist parties, and Trotskist parties split up a lot. If it helps, Poutou is anti-capitalist and Artaud is a communist. (A bunch of my neighbours recently joined yet another Trotskist splinter group.)


(The real explanation, though, is that there's one thing leftists hate more than capitalism, and it's other leftists. )

Ares Land wrote: ↑Mon Dec 20, 2021 1:56 pm (The real explanation, though, is that there's one thing leftists hate more than capitalism, and it's other leftists. )

From Twitter (@tintinades): Translation:

Kudos to the creator for reproducing Hergé's handwriting.

And to you for respecting the English translation of Dupond/Dupont

Oh, and Ares's quip reminds me of a meme I saw on Twitter, a Venn diagram of the views of conservatives, liberals, and leftists. The only bit I remember is that the one thing they all shared was "Hate leftists".

putain, vous avez so many fascist candidates

Torco wrote: ↑Tue Dec 21, 2021 11:14 am putain, vous avez so many fascist candidates

The more fascist candidates the better, since it means the less likely one will get into the second round.

Yeah, ain't it sweet?
I blame Charles de Gaulle for this.

Our constitution was drafted (well, heavily inspired) by Charles de Gaulle. He was a war hero, and a man with an exceptionally strong case for being a benevolent despot. The man thought it entirely natural that France should be run by an autocrat with-near dictatorial power. Since he hated party politics with a passion, he was sure the best way to govern a country was to elect a despot once in a while by universal suffrage. I think the man seriously thought the position would never be abused, because he, himself, had never felt the urge to abuse it.

Anyway. Our President (unlike, say, the American president) has vast and nearly uncontested powers. (For complex reasons, the Parliament isn't an issue anymore.) Can you see the attraction to the fascist?

I should add that it's not that hard to run for President. You need 500 elected officials (mayors, city councillors) to approve your candidacy. We got a lot of elected officials in France, so finding 500 of these folks to vouch for you is a chore, but not that hard. Once you get these signatures (and, you know, sometimes a lot before you get 'em, if the media thinks you're a serious candidate) you get guaranteed nationwide media attention. Do you see the attraction to a narcissist?

So we get a lot of fascists, a lot of narcissists, and really, most candidates are, god help us, on both spectrums.

General de Gaulle thought the French people would sort it out. Really, it's a testament to him and democracy both that he turned out to be right. While we've had a normal share of incompetent politicians, we haven't elected a genocidal nut, so far.
(In fact I don't really think we'll ever get a fascist President in my lifetime, knock on wood. But damn, the close calls are scary.)

Oh, by the way, let me remind you that the same country that elects a de-facto dictator for five years through a narcissist melee fight has the third largest nuclear arsenal in the world.
Sleep tight.

A few of the real reasons we haven't invaded Belgium and nuked Algeria entirely yet: a) we're a rich country; rich folks can't be arsed to go out and hold pogroms b) we have a functional, non-corrupt court system c) our army has a very strong tradition of not doing stupid shit.
Elections, shmelections, these are the three factors that make a democracy work.

Ares Land wrote: ↑Tue Dec 21, 2021 2:38 pm c) our army has a very strong tradition of not doing stupid shit.

Forget about the OAS?

Point a) is obviously wrong (Germany had the highest per capita GDP in Europe in 1939). But it's certainly true that Democracy requires that the various people in charge of pulling levers and turning nobs for the government remain largely apolitical in their professional capacity. In practice that mostly boils down to judges, generals, and civil servants. We in the US lost the first leg of that tripod in November 2000, and ever since people have been waiting for any sign that the other two are about to fall, but so far they haven't.

I'm not counting flashy headlines about a particular military dalience or some official who refused to give driving permits to gays. The test of apoliticalness is as follows:
1) When your country has an election, do the news agencies write first-page stories trying to predict which candidate Group X will support?
2) Do politicians frequently talk about why it's so important to get good people into Group X?
3) Do any major election strategies involve pandering to Group X for any reason other than their combined number of votes?
If you answered no to any of the above, Group X is apolitical.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Tue Dec 21, 2021 4:37 pm

Ares Land wrote: ↑Tue Dec 21, 2021 2:38 pm c) our army has a very strong tradition of not doing stupid shit.

Forget about the OAS?

True. And though the OAS days are over, it's likely there still are a number of dangerous groups active in the armed forces.
Still, the army isn't likely to support or organize a coup. The Algiers putsch is the closest we ever came to it.