Talk:Alliance for the Future of Austria

Right wing?

How can BZÖ be labeled as right wing, if it supports things like Tobin tax, minimum wage and social market economy? -- User:Tyrerj

Should we redefine the political position as center-right? --N00bh4ck3r (talk) 23:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I`ve also a question: It is written, that the BZÖ is "far right". That is not true, according to the source (Nr.2) and also because of their program. --User:a (User talk:a) 23:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.232.131.95 (talk)

I would just suggest removing the field 'position' from the political party infoboxes and that's it. Recently I had a similar discussion with a prolific user at Talk:Liberal Forum, but I'm afraid we still weren't really seeing eye to eye. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 17:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The BZÖ ist centre-right.

Man habe sich auf einen "bürgerlichen Kurs rechts der Mitte" geeinigt und "den trage ich voll mit", versicherte er.

They had agreed to a "bourgeoise course right of the centre" and "I carry with fully," he assured.

Right of the centre means centre-right its just a synonym for this position. So also says wikipedia "The centre-right (or center-right), also known as right of centre"

Heres the source where the citation "bürgerlichen Kurs rechts der Mitte" comes from: http://www.wienerzeitung.at/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=3858&Alias=wzo&cob=535117

N00bh4ck3r (talk) 22:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Err update. It means in translation (literally not tranlated with a machine) They had agreed to a "middle-class course right of the centre" and "I carry with fully," he assured. Not bourgeoise reminds to Bourgeoisie. But Bourgeoisie and middle-class are not the same! I just checked the german and english wiki and it sais the article de:Bürgertum where "bürgerlich" appears is related to middle class. N00bh4ck3r (talk)

I have added the template and added some information where it says "Political Ideology: Nationalism, Liberalism" but I am far from 100% sure because the BZÖ is difficult to pinpoint. It seems like a mixture of (Austro-) Nationalism and economic liberalism (not leftist liberalism). Maybe someone can add some clarification on these categories? Gryffindor 00:04, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. Parties, which only represent economic liberalism, but are conservative in other issues, are listed in the category "Liberal-conservative parties", not liberal parties. I'll make the necessary changes. --82.181.26.77 21:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The two terms that best describe the BZO are 'populist' and 'nationalist'. Using the term 'liberal' can only cause confusion since it is not understood that this is the real meaning of 'liberal' as in the Liberal Party of the UK. However, the Liberal Party is to the right and populism is not. It would probably be best not t use the term 'right' at all. Tyrerj (talk) 20:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC) I`ve also a question: It is written, that the BZÖ is "far right". That is not true, according to the source (Nr.2) and also because of their program. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.232.131.95 (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I just added that the BZÖ is a party of Conservative liberalism Excerpt: "Conservative liberal parties combine liberal policies with more traditional stances on social and ethical issues.[2] They are generally supporters of economic liberalism and they often identify themselves as law and order-parties, which are tougher on crime and support higher levels of punishment and are more committed to fighting terrorism.[citation needed] Conservative liberals differ from social liberals because they place less emphasis on ethical issues and are often in favour of stricter control of illegal immigration and are usually less tolerant of multiculturalism.[citation needed]

And thats 100% what the BZÖ party stands for. For example austriantimes of 19.01.2010 states: "Alliance for the Future of Austria (BZÖ) security spokesman Peter Westenthaler also called for re-imposition of border controls, the abrogation of the Schengen Agreement and harsher punishments for crime." http://austriantimes.at/news/General_News/2010-01-19/19802/FP%C3%96%20calls%20for%20Fekter%20resignation-replay-562 N00bh4ck3r (talk) 22:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I think you're approaching WP:OR here. If we read conservative liberalism as classical liberalism, then the Liberal Forum is the closest we can get to that trend in Austria. The defining feature of the BZÖ still seems to be its 'law-and-order' stance (incl. opposition to the kind of multiculturalism that they regard as eroding Austrians' civil liberties, security and well-being), as you yourself pointed out, and not its economic liberalism. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 12:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

In fact the Liberal Forum (German: Liberales Forum, LIF) is for classical liberalism but they are in fact rather social liberals than economic liberals. On their article it says: Ideology: Classical liberalism Political position Centre

The BZÖ is a center-right in comparision to the LIF and other partys. Thats because it stands more near economic liberalism and has nothing to do with the social liberals, as its can be seen as "right wing of the liberal movement" a party which is linked to conservative liberalism.

According to what I know "Conservative liberalism is a variant of liberalism, combining liberal values and policies with conservative stances, or, more simply, representing the right-wing of the liberal movement. And the BZÖ ist rather on the right-wing than on the left. Thats only the first think. Next is "Conservative liberals differ from social liberals because they place less emphasis on ethical issues and are often in favour of stricter control of illegal immigration and are usually less tolerant of multiculturalism.".

In fact the BZÖ is less tolerant to multiculturalism(the LIF was pro-multiculturalism). So says there "Generalsekretär":

"Multi-Kulti-Gesellschaft hat viele Probleme geschaffen, aber keine gelöst." >Multi-cultural society has created many problems, but no solved.

He even criticises the Greens because they are doing the same as the so called LIF(Liberal Forum).

"Sollten sich die Grünen nicht von der gescheiteren Multi-Kulti-Ideologie verabschieden und ein neues, für die Wähler attraktives Profil finden, droht ihnen ein kontinuierlicher Schrumpfungsprozess, an dessen Ende ein LIF-Schicksal steht"

>> "Should not the green of the cleverer Multi-cultural ideology and adopt a new, for voters find attractive profile, they face a continuous Contraction process, which at the end of a LIF fate.

Source: http://www.ots.at/presseaussendung/OTS_20100912_OTS0012/bzoe-ebner-unter-glawischnig-werden-gruene-aschgrau

So the Alliance for the Future of Austria is for sure differing from the social liberal which I see as the Liberal Forum. The Alliance for the Future of Austria is exactly what is described in the article conservative liberalism the right-wing of the liberal movement. and differ from social liberals because they place less emphasis on ethical issues and are often in favour of stricter control of illegal immigration(this party even wanted to get rid of 30% of the abroaders in a tv-debate in 2006 see here: http://www.theglobalguru.com/article.php?id=61&offer=GURU) and are usually less tolerant of multiculturalism(see the Source). N00bh4ck3r (talk) 16:13, 20 February 2011 (UTC) Hope it helps

Well, I admit you do have a point on LiF. It's more like libertarian it seems (economically still rightist and socially extremely nonrestrictive). Nevertheless, aspects you mention here concerning BZÖ (opposition to multiculturalism, stricter control of immigration) are not typical of any trends of liberalism, not even of the 'right-wing liberalism' you want to refer to. In this respect, it still should be noted that BZÖ derives from the national-populist 'das dritte Lager', perhaps forming a more 'liberal' offshoot of that tendency. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 18:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to say so but you are completly wrong on saysing "are not typical of any trends of liberalism". Just read the site I'm linking to all the time Conservative_liberalism, thats where it says "Conservative liberals differ from social liberals because they place less emphasis on ethical issues and are often in favour of stricter control of illegal immigration and are usually less tolerant of multiculturalism." which is the course of the party. Sure you are allowed to ad the 'das dritte Lager' thingy if it has to do with the party's history. N00bh4ck3r (talk) 03:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint you, mate, but the Wikipedia article you're referring to is hardly “der Weisheit letzter Schluss”. In fact, what you're citing here are the CN-tagged (unsourced) portions of the article. If you look what scholarly sources are saying, then you'll notice that 1) conservative liberalism is usually understood as another label for more 'up-to-date' classical liberalism aka economic liberalism 2) the scholarly sources I emphasize would define the 'conservative liberalism' you bring up here as a trend of liberalism that is just more vigorous in defense of the free market. All other features - more conservative outlook on societal matters, moral or immigration - are secondary characteristics. That's exactly why we could easily describe the Dutch VVD as conservative liberal, whilst the PVV does not exactly fit under that trend (and causes headache for political scientists, if I exaggerate a bit). If one argues that BZÖ is developing into a typical conservative liberal party, then I'd expect them now to resemble FDP of Germany or the aforementioned VVD. So far I think they are quite dissimilar in many respects. All of this doesn't mean that you can't describe BZÖ as conservative liberal: in a way it's true, but I think it's not the whole truth yet. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 14:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Then you have to first change the article conservative liberalism, to prevent that other articles also use it as a reference. But however BZÖ is still a party that stands for economic liberalism. This wasn't added from me, somebody else wrote that, who knows more. I removed the cons-lib. now. N00bh4ck3r (talk) 22:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Praise of Nazi employment policy

As much as I hate the guy, in my opinion Haider didn't "praise" Nazi employment policy, at least not in that famous speech always quoted in the international media. Sure, Haider said lots of dodgy things that gave the impression he was a Nazi apologist, but in this particular instance the international media took his words out of context and propagated his supposed praise as a fact.

To my memory the original speech went something like this:

Compared to you, Mr. so-and-so, even the Third Reich had a better employment policy.

Well, to me that crucial word "even" suggest that this sentence was meant as an insult directed at the opposition rather than a praise of the Nazis. It was a very distasteful and inappropriate insult, yes. But a praise it wasn't. As I've said, I'm in no way trying to defend Haider. But it is important to stick to facts, since this is an encyclopedia, not the left wing press. 82.32.60.14 23:33, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

The actual phrase that Haider used is quoted briefly - in German - in the article. The full quote is "Na, das hat's im Dritten Reich nicht gegeben, weil im Dritten Reich haben sie ordentliche Beschäftigungspolitik gemacht, was nicht einmal Ihre Regierung in Wien zusammenbringt. Das muss man auch einmal sagen." - see here. This translates as "Well, that didn't exist in the Third Reich, because in the Third Reich they had decent employment policies, which your government in Vienna can't manage. One has to say even that." He was comparing the then Austrian govenrment's employment policies with the Third Reich, it's true, but this wasn't merely saying Your policies are so bad they're even worse than the Nazis; he was saying the Nazis policies were ordentlich which is difficult to translate but implies basically decent, well-ordered, fitting etc. and that the modern Austrian government's (then an SPÖ/ÖVP coalition) were not. This may have been a slip in a piece of exaggerated political rhetoric, but nonetheless he did praise the Nazi's employment policies. Valiantis 14:12, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

BZÖ ministries

The BZÖ is in charge of 3 ministries, not 2 as stated. Ursula Haubner is the Social Affairs Minister, Karin Gastinger the Justice Minister, and Hubert Gorbach the Minister of "Infrastructure, Innovation and Technology" (as well the Vice-Chancelorship). That's 3 ministries.

Alliance for the Future of Austria

It ist really funny, to read this translation of the Austrian Party BZÖ here and on the other hand the truth in todays news. The Americans are naming this "Movement" (origin Jörg Haider: Bündnis Zukunft Österreich) correct "Alliance-Future-Austria". http://www.travel.state.gov. This Movement was never named as For the Future of Austria.

Fact is that there are many things happened to its leaders and members. Look for example http://diepresse.com BZÖ gegen BZÖ: Das ist wahre Brutalität. BZÖ is splitted to FPK, FBZ, ... Uwe Scheuch moved with a part of his "FPK" near FPÖ again. ... 81.10.202.13 (talk) 17:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, "Alliance Future Austria" gives 511 hits in Google, and "Alliance for the Future of Austria" 46,100. Included among the latter are Britannica, BBC, MSNBC etc. Regarding the splits and schisms you mention, you are perfectly free to add such relevant info in the article (given that you use references). -TheG (talk) 17:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Canadian like Green Card?

I am quite confused about this phrase in the Policies section. Seeing as the Green Card is a purely American construct, this sort of seems like saying "Canadian-like Star-Spangled Banner," and doesn't make much sense. So would one actually mean the introduction of something like the American system? or is this actually more in-line with the Canadian system, and its Permanent Resident Card? Physcher (talk) 17:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Alliance for the Future of Austria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724113304/http://www.tripple.net/contator/journal/news.asp?nnr=44194 to http://www.tripple.net/contator/journal/news.asp?nnr=44194
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111114074524/http://www.bzoe.at/assets/files/bucher_plan_folder.pdf to http://www.bzoe.at/assets/files/bucher_plan_folder.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120306074102/http://www.tripple.net/contator/journal/news.asp?nnr=44194 to http://www.tripple.net/contator/journal/news.asp?nnr=44194
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121108063750/http://www.bzoe.at/assets/files/Programm_BZOE_WEB.pdf to http://www.bzoe.at/assets/files/Programm_BZOE_WEB.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:40, 2 July 2017 (UTC)