The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > It is easier to plan with a stable population > Comments

It is easier to plan with a stable population : Comments

By Eric Claus, published 12/8/2010

The major political parties are more concerned about getting elected than about planning beyond the next term of government.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. All
Well, it looks as if Tony has done his dash. Made out he was going to substantially reduce immigration when the coalition's policy was the same as Labor's. Now he is facing a certain defeat. Serves him right for trying to pull a con job on the Australian public, which is 70% against the status quo. So much for representing the people.

Abbott would win in a landslide if he announced a cut in immigration to around 120,000 per annum, but I think that some of his backers would rather him lose if it came to that.
Posted by Fester, Monday, 16 August 2010 10:03:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<< Abbott would win in a landslide if he announced a cut in immigration to around 120,000 per annum >>

Very interesting point Fester. I reckon you are right.

If he would just realise that his cause is lost if he doesn’t do something really significant, and that the really significant thing to do is to announce a very large reduction in immigration along with a genuine stabilisation of the population at a level not too much higher than at present and a real desire to achieve a sustainable society, he could put himself in the WINNING position in this election!

Of course lots of people in the business sector would hate him for it, but out there in the general community, they’d love him to death for actually showing some balls in this election!
Posted by Ludwig, Monday, 16 August 2010 10:15:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fester and Ludwig,

Well said and I thoroughly agree.

Tony Abbott needs over-population through over-enthusiastic immigration to maintain downwards pressure on wages and conditions. For most workers the eight hour day was lost years ago and unethical employers are reaping the benefits of stolen wages from unpaid overtime.

Immigration is a beaut blunt weapon for that - plenty of competition and they are soft targets. Just think how difficult it is for unions to organise workers from such disparate backgrounds and so desperate to work that they would forget OH&S in the workplace. What regulations, work or be fired, how simple is that?

If one reads the stories of migrants from previous immigration waves brought in as factory fodder it is impossible not to be affected by their stories.

Is Work Choices dead? Absolutely not, the attack dog was put out to stud and its ferocious pup is already being groomed for action.
Posted by Cornflower, Tuesday, 17 August 2010 12:53:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think that you small-Australia people are still missing the point.

Before you begin a journey, you decide where you want to get to.

It is pointless simply saying "somewhere else". You need to say exactly where that is.

Define what you want - say, for example, "a stable population of x".

Then you have to plan the trip. How to get there.

It is pointless simply saying "that way". You may find that you end up in a swamp, or over a cliff, with no way back.

You need to look at the various means at your disposal – immigration management, enforced birth control, taxation – and superimpose those on your “travel plan”.

Only then will you be in a position to guess at an outcome, as you will be able to see the demographic shifts involved. How many taxpayers, how many elderly and so on, at each stage that evolves.

At that point you will also need to address the challenge of the original target. How to ensure that the population remains “stable”, given the shifting sands upon which it is now built.

It is of course true that the sands are always shifting anyway. The difference is that you have turned them into government-policy-driven shifting sands.

Highly dangerous, even if you get it only slightly wrong.

So please, stop living in dreamland. If you are really serious about population control, and not just repeating comforting slogans to each other, you will start to address the practical issues involved.
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 17 August 2010 9:26:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My thoughts. Dick Smith or Kelvin Thompson may have their own.

Net zero immigration. This amounts to about 70,000 new immigrants per year about balancing the 70,000 or so that leave. It doesn't matter if you are high or low by 5,000 or 10,000. Can the baby bonus. Maternity leave system okay.

Start trying to be sustainable. Ween off fossil fuels. Build up infrastructure urban, rural and environmental. Increase retirement age 1/3 of a year per year. In 15 years it will be 70 then re-evaluate.

Pericles - Outline advantages to high immigration.
Posted by ericc, Tuesday, 17 August 2010 11:32:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles

Intervention has been more of a problem than a solution. For Australia, the high immigration of the 1950s was for the purpose of protecting the manufacturing industry and fortifying Australia against invasion. Both these reasons turned out to be bogus. Today the high immigration interventionists would have you believe that Australia faces an aging catastrophe, which ironically will be bigger as a result of the high immigration of the 1950s.

The high immigration of the last decade has left Australians with a housing crisis, massive infrastructure shortfalls and huge government debt. In addition, over seven million Australians are not being utilised in the workforce as it is much easier to poach workers from overseas than to train locals. That doesn't sound like successful planning to me.

On a world scale, the population would stabilise were contraception made available, but unfortunately there are too many who believe too strongly in intervention to allow people the right of self-determination.

Tony Abbott has nothing to lose now and should take a punt with the electorate with a last minute pledge to cut the immigration rate to 120,000 per annum.
Posted by Fester, Tuesday, 17 August 2010 9:11:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy