Opinion AUSTRALIAN Politics: Adelaide Board Discussion Part 5

[Cap]

They provided funding but, Clive Palmer aside, were smart enough not to be the face of the campaign. Corporate wealth was almost entirely on the No side and publicised by people/companies who are despised e.g. Alan Joyce, Gil McLachlan, Coles and Woolworths.

13 of the ASX top 20 were for Yes with the remainder neutral. The areas that Samaras described as referendum deserts have zero in common with a banking CEO. Why would they vote for something that a company who screws them daily thinks is a good idea?

I'm not suggesting the yes vote didn't have corporate support. And you maybe right, the Yes vote under estimated the pettiness of some.

But you only need to see the huge difference in volunteers to see which was the side simply funded by the elites of Australia.

Don't get me wrong, I understand why they used the 'elites' tag it's a good catch phrase and the yes campaign failed to address it.

 

[Cap]

Understanding voter behaviour at the Voi | Accent Research

www.accent-research.com

I wasn't going to post this here given how offended some posters get by statistics

But it is interesting.

It was the claim by opponents that the Voice would be divisive that appears to have been a major driver of opposition to the Voice, selected by 41 per cent of those voting No as the most important reason for their opposition.

Now that's still a referendum winning lead. Even with a margin of error.

Nearly half of voters (47 per cent) do not think that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders face more discrimination than White Australians. Of these, only 20 per cent voted Yes for the Voice.

That isn't a referendum winning lead.

I do find that answer astounding, but I could be reading into it wrong.

But the point is, the yes vote clearly didn't show the country Indigenous Australians face more discrimination than other Australians (to be fair, that 47% could and probably would include other minority or non white groups that do face similar discrimination)

Voters who relied on Sky News, the daily tabloid newspapers, the Australian, free to air television news and AM radio were less likely to say Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders faced discrimination, and (along with those who relied on Facebook and FM radio for news), were more likely to vote No. More than a quarter of voters report that each of free to air television news, Facebook, and the daily tabloid newspapers were important sources of news and information (58 per cent for free to air television).

This one I found interesting, given we have posters even on here than believe MSM in Australia is some left wing love in.

Clearly if the message is Aboriginal people don't face more discrimination, that doesn't seem to fit with the yes vote or what I consider left wing in this country (like the greens )

 

[MrKK]

I'm not suggesting the yes vote didn't have corporate support. And you maybe right, the Yes vote under estimated the pettiness of some.

But you only need to see the huge difference in volunteers to see which was the side simply funded by the elites of Australia.

Don't get me wrong, I understand why they used the 'elites' tag it's a good catch phrase and the yes campaign failed to address it.

Can you elaborate on the bolded bit? I honestly didn't notice a huge difference in volunteers either way.

 

[Cap]

Can you elaborate on the bolded bit? I honestly didn't notice a huge difference in volunteers either way.

There was plenty of talk on the day about the difference in numbers at polling booths.the one I was at was probably 6 to 2 in favour of yes.

Even the number of yes it and about was more to the naked eye.

I didn't keep stats so happy for you to have your own opinions

 

[arrowman]

These are all summaries of arguments stated as fact without anything to support it:

'support for Palestine has been a left-wing thing for a long time'

'Something to do with freeing the oppressed people from the oppressor'

'people like Che Guevara and Chairman Mao icons of the left'​

You then try to argue against those positions by stating the following:

'people seem to be able to blindly / blithely chant their support without a moment's thought about the dark side of those "heroes"'​

It is a classic strawman post. Set up an opposing position without anything to support that being the case, then put forward your argument against that made up position.

Your post effectively read like ... 'Something something, lefties, idolise Che and Mao, what idiots'.

Trying to define the Israel /Palestinian conflict by left /right is so flawed (especially when they don't want to accept Hamas are a right wing terrorist group) it's not funny.

But that's not going to stop people trying I guess.

OK, so - the proposition is that most/all of the support for / excusing of Hamas in Western countries comes from people on the left / "progressive" end of the spectrum. I think that's a reasonable proposition, in fact I think it is self-evident. Feel free to try a rebuttal, if you like.

(Note: The proposition is not that all people on the left support / excuse Hamas, it is that all the people who support / excuse Hamas are on the left.)

And yes it has been a left-wing thing for a long time; I've seen it for decades, dating back to the days when the PLO was invited to speak at my Uni.

The follow on from that, as El Doederino asked, is - if that is the case, then why is it so? I made a somewhat clumsy attempt to answer this, but the Tweet I quoted in my subsequent post does a much better job. Again, rebut if you wish.

I'm not trying to "define" the conflict by "left / right" and indeed it is true that Hamas is a right wing group by any reasonable measure. I'm just commenting on where their support is coming from in the West. The fact that Hamas is right wing doesn't rebut the fact that they get support / excuses from people on the left. It's just that for some reason (probably best explained in the aforementioned tweet) people on the left can overlook that because oppressed / oppressor, brown / white.

 

[adelaidecrows]

Its not a left right conflict its a religious conflict. Its always a religious conflict.

 

[Cap]

OK, so - the proposition is that most/all of the support for / excusing of Hamas in Western countries comes from people on the left / "progressive" end of the spectrum. I think that's a reasonable proposition, in fact I think it is self-evident. Feel free to try a rebuttal, if you like.

(Note: The proposition is not that all people on the left support / excuse Hamas, it is that all the people who support / excuse Hamas are on the left.)

And yes it has been a left-wing thing for a long time; I've seen it for decades, dating back to the days when the PLO was invited to speak at my Uni.

The follow on from that, as El Doederino asked, is - if that is the case, then why is it so? I made a somewhat clumsy attempt to answer this, but the Tweet I quoted in my subsequent post does a much better job. Again, rebut if you wish.

I'm not trying to "define" the conflict by "left / right" and indeed it is true that Hamas is a right wing group by any reasonable measure. I'm just commenting on where their support is coming from in the West. The fact that Hamas is right wing doesn't rebut the fact that they get support / excuses from people on the left. It's just that for some reason (probably best explained in the aforementioned tweet) people on the left can overlook that because oppressed / oppressor, brown / white.

No one, left or right in this country supports Hamas that I've ever seen. I've not seen it in other countries, but you might have seen something I haven't

You know who does support Hamas, Iran (right wing authoritarian) Hezbollah (right wing terrorist group) Russia, (right wing authoritarian) - Edit but yes I agree it's more about religion, good point above.

So unless you are suggesting that all of those protesters are left wing hippies dressing up as Palestinians then you probably need to do a bit more work on your view that the left or progressives support Hamas in the West.

Some people support Palestinians. But that's an entirely different discussion and nothing to do with left or right. Hell Ireland support Palestine, I don't consider them a prime example of a left wing country.

 

[MrKK]

There was plenty of talk on the day about the difference in numbers at polling booths.the one I was at was probably 6 to 2 in favour of yes.

Even the number of yes it and about was more to the naked eye.

I didn't keep stats so happy for you to have your own opinions

I agree that I saw more publicly from Yes than No but I don't see how it follows that No was therefore the side funded by elites. All of those glossy Yes corflutes aren't free.

 

[arrowman]

But the point is, the yes vote clearly didn't show the country Indigenous Australians face more discrimination than other Australians (to be fair, that 47% could and probably would include other minority or non white groups that do face similar discrimination)

That's a fair point. I'm not sure if I find that 47% figure surprising, or not... I'm sure a lot of Australians, rightly or wrongly, would from their position / experience say that Indigenous Australians don't actually face more discrimination than others. But perhaps the key word is "discrimination" and how you define it.

Perhaps a more meaningful analysis would include questions such as

• If you do think Indigenous Australians face discrimination, do you think a constitutionally enshrined Voice (of as yet unknown composition) would be able to address this (more that any other actions) in any practical way?
• Regardless of "discrimination", do you think Indigenous Australians, particularly in rural / remote communities, face issues that other Australians do not (or not to the same extent)? (I suspect you'd get a bigger "Yes" answer to that question.) - And if so, do you think that a constitutionally enshrined Voice... etc etc?

Perhaps these are the questions that the Yes campaign failed to address.

 

[Vader]

That's a fair point. I'm not sure if I find that 47% figure surprising, or not... I'm sure a lot of Australians, rightly or wrongly, would from their position / experience say that Indigenous Australians don't actually face more discrimination than others. But perhaps the key word is "discrimination" and how you define it.

Perhaps a more meaningful analysis would include questions such as

• If you do think Indigenous Australians face discrimination, do you think a constitutionally enshrined Voice (of as yet unknown composition) would be able to address this (more that any other actions) in any practical way?
• Regardless of "discrimination", do you think Indigenous Australians, particularly in rural / remote communities, face issues that other Australians do not (or not to the same extent)? (I suspect you'd get a bigger "Yes" answer to that question.) - And if so, do you think that a constitutionally enshrined Voice... etc etc?

Perhaps these are the questions that the Yes campaign failed to address.

I don't think they're discriminated against. I do think they are significantly disadvantaged, particularly those living outside the capital cities.

Surely the role of the Voice would have been to identify and advise the Govt of ways of reducing their level of disadvantage?

 

[fortunatecrow]

I'm not trying to "define" the conflict by "left / right" and indeed it is true that Hamas is a right wing group by any reasonable measure. I'm just commenting on where their support is coming from in the West. The fact that Hamas is right wing doesn't rebut the fact that they get support / excuses from people on the left. It's just that for some reason (probably best explained in the aforementioned tweet) people on the left can overlook that because oppressed / oppressor, brown / white.

UK of course, but Jeremy Corbyn's anti-semitism and support for Hamas and Hezbollah is well known and undeniable. That said, I think anyone worrying about whether terrorists themselves are left wing or right wing is missing the point.

 

[fortunatecrow]

I'm not suggesting the yes vote didn't have corporate support. And you maybe right, the Yes vote under estimated the pettiness of some.

But you only need to see the huge difference in volunteers to see which was the side simply funded by the elites of Australia.

Don't get me wrong, I understand why they used the 'elites' tag it's a good catch phrase and the yes campaign failed to address it.

I think the idea of deciding a referendum issue by a headcount of volunteers is probably the best thought you've had in a long time, well done.

 

[arrowman]

No one, left or right in this country supports Hamas that I've ever seen. I've not seen it in other countries, but you might have seen something I haven't

Well, I have seen such things, maybe I'll post some the next time I see them.

I should clarify, though - I said, and mean - "support or excuse" (or simply fail to condemn). I'm not saying these people are outright supporting / cheering on Hamas' acts of barbarity; just failing to offer a full-throated condemnation that they would undoubtedly be offering if Israel had done the same; just looking the other way and saying "yes, but...".

You know who does support Hamas, Iran (right wing authoritarian) Hezbollah (right wing terrorist group) Russia, (right wing authoritarian) - Edit but yes I agree it's more about religion, good point above.

Fair comment and yes, it is indeed fundamentally about religion.

Some people support Palestinians. But that's an entirely different discussion and nothing to do with left or right. Hell Ireland support Palestine, I don't consider them a prime example of a left wing country.

Yes, I think that's where there's a disconnect or complexity, if you like. I, like many people, definitely support Palestinian people's rights / wishes to live in peace. Just that those people's interests are not served by them being under the power of Hamas. Heck, there's a lot of Palestinians who probably wish Hamas would just go away and leave them alone to live in peace.

Just depends on where you think the greatest threat to Palestinian people - ordinary Palestinian people, not religious zealots / ideologues - comes from. Some would say it's Israel. I would say it's Hamas.

 

[Cap]

I agree that I saw more publicly from Yes than No but I don't see how it follows that No was therefore the side funded by elites. All of those glossy Yes corflutes aren't free.

That was more of an add on comment

The no campaign was funded by people like Gina Reinhardt , Simon Fenwick and as you said Clive Palmer. These people are literally the elites of Australia (you can also look at the Right Wing propaganda group Advance Australia)

Even Peter Dutton and Co are elites of Australia (heck I've read varying reports of his net worth being between $5m and $300m)

It was well funded by the elites of this country, I didn't think that was overly controversial but was something the Yes campaign failed miserably in.

 

[Cap]

Well, I have seen such things, maybe I'll post some the next time I see them.

I should clarify, though - I said, and mean - "support or excuse" (or simply fail to condemn). I'm not saying these people are outright supporting / cheering on Hamas' acts of barbarity; just failing to offer a full-throated condemnation that they would undoubtedly be offering if Israel had done the same; just looking the other way and saying "yes, but...".

Fair comment and yes, it is indeed fundamentally about religion.

Yes, I think that's where there's a disconnect or complexity, if you like. I, like many people, definitely support Palestinian people's rights / wishes to live in peace. Just that those people's interests are not served by them being under the power of Hamas. Heck, there's a lot of Palestinians who probably wish Hamas would just go away and leave them alone to live in peace.

Just depends on where you think the greatest threat to Palestinian people - ordinary Palestinian people, not religious zealots / ideologues - comes from. Some would say it's Israel. I would say it's Hamas.

I'd love to see them, because those people should be rightly called out.

Most of the commentary I've seen that borderline excuses Hamas is usually related to not killing innocent Palestinians or making their own judgement on what appropriate retaliation to Hamas is.

All I know, and I reckon we all agree, the sooner Hamas are gone, the better.

 

[arrowman]

or making their own judgement on what appropriate retaliation to Hamas is.

Maybe that's in the choice of words. IMO it's gone beyond "retaliation" as in "now, don't do it again". Right now, Israel has got to the point of wanting to wipe out Hamas completely, and frankly you can't blame them for that. But a lot of innocent people (including Hamas' human shields) are going to die in the process.

- Speaking of which, I saw something Douglas Murray said recently, on the subject of what is a "proportional response" (which some people are calling for).

His first comment was in relation to how the definition of "proportional" changes when it comes to actual war (which is what this is) - I don't recall his exact words so I'll just leave that there.

His second comment - working from memory, I'll paraphrase - was something like...

'So, let's look at what a proportional response from Israel would be. First, they'd have to find a music festival in Gaza (good luck with that), then they'd have to parachute in troops who then r*aped exactly the same number of young women, killed exactly the same number of innocent people, kidnapped / took hostage exactly the same number of other people...'

I think there's something in that.

 

[fortunatecrow]

Things going great....NOT!

View attachment 1834864

Is that correct Mutineer? I'm pretty sure our power bills were going down by $275, not up by $434?

 

[The Perfect Stranger]

Once again the left just don't get it, higher education does not necessarily equal higher intelligence.

Or moral superiority or empathy for those that are not like you or an immunity from extreme bigotry. ***There were doctors, lawyers, philosophers, economists among the Nazi leadership.

 

[ADL9798]

 

[fortunatecrow]

Is that correct Mutineer? I'm pretty sure our power bills were going down by $275, not up by $434?

Mutineer, remember when it was utterly ridiculous to suggest that power prices would be going up? I remember being told they'd go down, repeatedly, by people who apparently believed that the power companies were deliberately choosing a more expensive way to produce electricity (presumably being so keen to pollute that they would actually incur higher costs to do so?)

 

[fortunatecrow]

Looks like Jim Chalmers has identified a new excuse, from the Age:

"Conflict in the Middle East is a concerning part of economic outlook: Treasurer

By Caroline Schelle​

Treasurer Jim Chalmers says despite the record figures, conflict in the Middle East was a concerning part of the economic outlook.
“We are already seeing global oil prices come up in recent months, and the conflict in the Middle East risks making that worse,” he told reporters in Canberra moments ago. He said the Reserve Bank governor made a similar point, and that inflation numbers which predate the conflict in the Middle East will capture some of the early impacts of the increase in oil prices.

“When you have got conflict in that part of the world, the risk is upward pressure on level oil prices and Australians would feel that at the bowser,” Chalmers said.

 

[Eagleboy2011]

If they really cared about the cost of living in Australia they could immediately halve the excise on petroleum/diesel to help people but no, as soon as they could they bunged the FULL tax back on after the LNP cut it during Covid.

The Greenies who also support Hamas would go crazy. High energy prices are their MO.

 

[fortunatecrow]

OK, so - the proposition is that most/all of the support for / excusing of Hamas in Western countries comes from people on the left / "progressive" end of the spectrum. I think that's a reasonable proposition, in fact I think it is self-evident. Feel free to try a rebuttal, if you like.

Full text of the letter of support from 100 unions issued today here but the first sentence is:

"In accordance with the union movement’s values of peace, justice and solidarity with working people, we are horrified by the current war between Israel and Hamas..."

A letter drafted and signed by those who apparently don't understand that Hamas is not a country, but in fact is recognised as a terrorist organisation by Australia, Canada, the European Union, Japan, UK, USA, and others.

 

[BRL121]

Full text of the letter of support from 100 unions issued today/yesterday here but the first sentence is:

"In accordance with the union movement’s values of peace, justice and solidarity with working people, we are horrified by the current war between Israel and Hamas..."

A letter drafted and signed by those who apparently don't understand that Hamas is not a country, but in fact is recognised as a terrorist organisation by Australia, Canada, the European Union, Japan, UK, USA, and others.

What's wrong with that? Israel has declared war, justifiably, on Hamas. Nowhere have they said that Hamas is a country.

 

[fortunatecrow]

What's wrong with that? Israel has declared war, justifiably, on Hamas. Nowhere have they said that Hamas is a country.

The Hague Convention has definitions for wars and declarations of war, and says they are between states. But since Israel says that it has declared war (even if technically in a legal sense they can't) then yes I have to agree with you that it seems reasonable for everyone else to refer to it in the same way. Maybe it's just me stuck in the past?