PDA

View Full Version : political jargon



qpawn
08-12-2006, 01:54 PM
I have just joined a POLITICAL PARTY! :eek:

I am not telling you which one. :D

But my issue is this: I don't understand all the political terms. I mean, what does "right-wing" mean for all the times it's chucked around?

Private enterprise in a broad sense of making capital?
Services owned by private corporations rather than the govt?
Racism?
Opposition to immigration?
The shooters' party [jk] BANG! GEEZ THAT WAS A KALASHNIKOV. [and I don't mean the variation of the Sicillian defence though, that too, can explode into violent exchanges.]

What about "left-wing?"
A tree hugger?
Commo?
Things should be owned by the govt unless there is a clear need for a profit ?
Support the right to free speech including Iriving, Mullaly, Hanson and other cacophonic mutations of sane intellectual discourse?

So when someone says that there is a "faction" [whatever that means] of a party what does the "right faction" or "center-left" faction etc mean?

I will say that the main motivation for my political involvement [ I have never been a meber of any political party before] is one of educational issues. The Liberal Party's policy last week that a university course can be culled if it doesn't satisfy a fiscal agenda [ that of graduates getting jobs at teh end] was the most disgusting, disconcerting policy that I have heard in 31 years of human life. And against fierce competion in the stupidity department taht is saying something.

And yes that eliminates 1 party [clearly].
And if there is a "touch typing proficiency" party I haven't joined that1 either.

:D

Steve K
08-12-2006, 01:56 PM
If you don't understand the jargon how did you decide which party to join?

qpawn
08-12-2006, 02:00 PM
Because I understood the party's website whenever such jargon was absent.

:D

And yes, that eliminates all aprties with no website. :D

So it's not the Anarchist Party [ they would smash their website :) ]

Steve K
08-12-2006, 03:39 PM
If you have seriously visited the websites of the major parties and read what they had to say then your have been seriously mislead. You should have read the commentary pages in any of the broadsheets over a period of a few weeks and you would received a far more accurate appraisal of what's on offer. Considering your approach it's no wonder you're confused.

qpawn
08-12-2006, 03:57 PM
Steve K, I can only paraphrase Mr Mcenroe: You can't be serious???

****

If you have seriously visited the websites of the major parties and read what they had to say then your have been seriously mislead. You should have read the commentary pages in any of the broadsheets over a period of a few weeks and you would received a far more accurate appraisal of what's on offer. Considering your approach it's no wonder you're confused.

***

Do you have any idea how DUMB some of the commentary pages are in major newspapers? I say to you assuredly that there is very little intelligent life within the words of Messrs Andrew Bolt and John Roskam, from the Herald Sun and Age respectively.

But you are right on one thing: those websites of the major political parties can be pretty misleading. Let's take the Liberal party's website. There is a page where it says " Our Beliefs , What does the Liberal Party stand for? We believe in the inalieable rights and freedoms of al peoples; and we work towards a [reduction in] interference in our daily lives ...

the stuff in brackets is what was missed on the margin of the printer but it is there from memory.

Interference???? Culling university courses becuase the LIBERAL PARTY BEANCOUNTERS are not delivering enough employed graduates to make that supercreep Kevin Andrews happy?? That is the WORST interference I have ever come across from a political party. Liberalism, going back to John Stuart Mill's magnus opus "On Liberty" is meant to be about the rights and freedoms of the individual being maximised unless they iinterfere with the wellbeing of others. This current Liberal government represents liberalism ? You have to be absolutely joking! THEY have the "right" to CULL my course because of THEIR definition of economic success.

I seek intelligent life wherever I can find it. But it ain't in a lot of newspaper columns or websites; even bones Mccoy would be hard-pressed to beam anything sentient up to Captain Kirk.

antichrist
08-12-2006, 05:01 PM
qpawn would believe everything the commos would tell her

Steve K
08-12-2006, 05:49 PM
qpawn, Bolt writes for a tabloid and I didn't suggest that you take all that the commentators have to say as gospel. You seem to know far more about politics that you first let on. If that's the case why didn't you simply ask a straight question in the first place OR make whatever statement you felt compelled to make?

eclectic
08-12-2006, 05:56 PM
If you don't understand the jargon how did you decide which party to join?

...
qpawn (slightly silly party) 0 votes
...

:owned: :owned: :owned:

Kevin Bonham
08-12-2006, 06:33 PM
Interference???? Culling university courses becuase the LIBERAL PARTY BEANCOUNTERS are not delivering enough employed graduates to make that supercreep Kevin Andrews happy?? That is the WORST interference I have ever come across from a political party. Liberalism, going back to John Stuart Mill's magnus opus "On Liberty" is meant to be about the rights and freedoms of the individual being maximised unless they iinterfere with the wellbeing of others. This current Liberal government represents liberalism ? You have to be absolutely joking! THEY have the "right" to CULL my course because of THEIR definition of economic success.

While I don't support tying university course funding to employment outcomes either, the invocation of classical liberalism in this argument is invalid. The government does not determine what courses are offered but it does determine what courses are funded and a uni would be unlikely to offer a course at a loss. The classical liberal perspective is that education is none of the business of the State and the State should not be funding uni courses at all, whether they lead to jobs or not. (The obvious reason for this is that if you make a person pay for education with their taxes then that reduces their economic freedom.) Only in the 20th century did liberals tend more towards supporting education funding by the State to at least some degree.

qpawn
08-12-2006, 09:17 PM
The classical liberal perspective is that education is none of the business of the State and the State should not be funding uni courses at all, whether they lead to jobs or not. (The obvious reason for this is that if you make a person pay for education with their taxes then that reduces their economic freedom.) Only in the 20th century did liberals tend more towards supporting education funding by the State to at least some degree.

************


That was not my understanding of classic liberalism up to the 20th century. I will have to look up my copy of "On Liberty" to see if Mill espouses teh above. But even if you are right about Mill, or Adam Smith for that matter, I still think that my use of classic liberalism was valid enough: I find it very hard to fathom that Mill or Bentham believed in the right of a governnment to impose its economic wishes to cull someone's course: a course that, moreover, satisfied someone's desire for happiness!!!

I also thought that classic liberalism was about letting market forces decide which courses a university puts on rather than a centralised governmnet executive stepping in.

Kevin Bonham
08-12-2006, 10:43 PM
That was not my understanding of classic liberalism up to the 20th century. I will have to look up my copy of "On Liberty" to see if Mill espouses teh above. But even if you are right about Mill, or Adam Smith for that matter, I still think that my use of classic liberalism was valid enough: I find it very hard to fathom that Mill or Bentham believed in the right of a governnment to impose its economic wishes to cull someone's course: a course that, moreover, satisfied someone's desire for happiness!!!

I also thought that classic liberalism was about letting market forces decide which courses a university puts on rather than a centralised governmnet executive stepping in.

You're still missing the point here: if this is about government decisions on funding (which it surely is - there is no way even this government would simply start banning courses on those grounds) then the classical liberal perspective is indeed that market forces decide which courses a university offers. Not only should the government not be funding courses that are of questionable employment value on such a view, but indeed the government should not be funding any courses!

So for the market-forces-decides model, this decision is a step in the right direction - it just doesn't go far enough!

Denis_Jessop
08-12-2006, 11:28 PM
I rather think that, as far as Australia (with particular reference to NSW) is concerned, neither Kevin nor qpawn is within cooee of what actually happened.

The issue of State aid for church schools, which were virtually the only privately run schools was very big in the 19th Century and was dependant to a considerable extent on the Catholic/Protestant split in the Australian commmunity. For example, my great great grandfather (I think that's the right number of greats), John Caldwell, stood for election for the then multi-member electorate of East Sydney for the NSWParliament in the 1860s or thereabouts on a joint platform with Sir Henry Parkes of no State aid for church schools. He was a Northern Ireland Methodist and staunchly anti-Catholic. He was also elected.

With the rise of the welfare State after the second World War, JB Chifley as PM proposed a Commonwealth Scholarships scheme that would pay university fees and a living allowance, subject to a means test, to enable more young Australians to attend universities. This was ideologically sound Labor policy. Labor lost office before the scheme was implemented but incoming PM RG Menzies adopted the scheme (just as he also adopted the Snowy Mountains Scheme) and implemented it for many years afterwards, thus enabling many young people, including me, to attend university when we probably otherwise could not have. Yet Menzies claimed to more liberal than the next man.

In considering Australian political and social history regard always has to be had to the Catholic/Protestant rivalry which at times was pretty bitter in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Of course it roughly equated to the division of the population into migrants of either Irish (Catholic) or English (Protestant) descent. For example the defeat of the conscription referendum in 1916 was largely due to the advocacy of Daniel Mannix, later Cardinal Mannix. And on a slightly lighter side I well remember as a primary school student in Dubbo in the 1940s incidents of public and catholic school students walking on opposite sides of the road and hurling both insults and stones at each other.

You might gather that I am a follower of the realist school of jurisprudence and like matters. Australian politics has rarely been strongly influenced by theory of any kind. Personalities and opportunism count for much more and party factions are often composed on bases that don't necessarily reflect a theoretical position.

DJ

PS The present Federal government's position on education is governed by a well-known principle espoused on and off over the years by anti-labor parties, namely that they act in the interests of the rich and to hell with everyone else. This is also gradually becoming adopted as Labor policy too.

Kevin Bonham
08-12-2006, 11:33 PM
I rather think that, as far as Australia (with particular reference to NSW) is concerned, neither Kevin nor qpawn is within cooee of what actually happened.

I was just talking about developments in political philosophy ... which has frequently and often rightly been accused of not being within cooee of what is actually happening!

eclectic
09-12-2006, 10:06 AM
. For example the defeat of the conscription referendum in 1916 was largely due to the advocacy of Daniel Mannix, later Cardinal Mannix.

He was never made a cardinal. He was appointed coadjutor archbishop of Melbourne in 1912 and succeeded his predecessor to the position in 1917 remaining there until his death in 1963 just short of his 100th birthday.

He was also appointed to the Military Vicariate at around the same time he became archbishop; an irony seemingly given his anti conscription stance.

ElevatorEscapee
09-12-2006, 09:08 PM
Wasn't there once a "Party for more parties Party" contesting a South Australian election?

Denis_Jessop
09-12-2006, 10:11 PM
Wasn't there once a "Party for more parties Party" contesting a South Australian election?

In the days when the ACT's elected body was an Advisory Council only, Alan Fitzgerald, a local journalist, stood as an Independent on the platform that he would do nothing. He was elected but soon reneged on his promise, as all politicians do, and started to do things. Then there was Ian Rout's Deadly Serious Party but I'll leave it to him to say more about that, or not, as the case may be.


DJ

Kevin Bonham
09-12-2006, 10:12 PM
Wasn't there once a "Party for more parties Party" contesting a South Australian election?

I thought that was the Party Party Party, which together with the Sun-Ripened Warm Tomato Party and the Surprise Party (all run by the same guy) made an appearance in the inaugural ACT election (the one with the notorious "tablecloth" ballot paper under the less than fortunate Consolidated D'Hondt electoral system).

ElevatorEscapee
10-12-2006, 08:05 AM
Ah yes, the "Party Party Party" rings a bell. :)

My favourite Aussie 'silly' candidate would have to have been "Pauline Pantsdown", (a man dressed up as Pauline Hanson) who released a couple of songs made up of samples of speeches from Pauline Hanson "I don't like it" & John Howard "I'm sorry".