I think I've finally figured out why academia, & public servants, [both the same really] are so anti Howard.

It's all in what he, as distinct from labor expected from them.

Labor are happy to pay them double what they were worth, & ask nothing in return, except their vote of course.

Howard actually wanted his moneys worth in work, which is impossible for most of them to produce. So any policy of Howard's was/is viewed with extreme suspicion, in case it is some trick to make them do a days work, every day.

GY

From your article:

>>> The choice of words is significant. <<<

Totally agree. Your choice of words is very significant and telling. You may claim my posts went off on a tangent, however any astute read will know I was taking issue with your choice of words and for good reason. Consider the rest of your statement:

>>> Supporters of more liberal immigration laws almost always use "refugee" or "asylum-seeker" and tend to be Labor or Greens voters, while Liberals, Nationals and others favour "immigrant". <<<

Libs, Nats and others favour "illegal" immigrant/alien/boat people whatever. The important word you deliberately missed was "illegal". The far-right of the Liberal party attach the descriptive "illegal" to any type of asylum seeker ALL the time.

Indeed, choice or omission of words is highly significant. Add to this is your confusion between two words:

"attack"

and

"criticism"

Nothing I nor Ginx has written on this thread could be remotely construed to be an attack.

I have extensively criticised your omission of the word "illegal" for very good reason. That you react personally to my opinion is your problem. Mine is to present my point of view on Online Opinion to the best of my ability. I may not be the most articulate or succinct writer on these pages, however I am as entitled to present my POV as anyone else here.

As for the point of your article: "Refugees will be an election issue".

Sad, but true. Both Labor and the Libs will continue to use 10% of Asylum seekers as a major issue leading up to the federal election. And achieve little else.

What a shame to see so much energy and passion put in to missing GrahamY's point in his article.

As I understand it, the 'What the people want' polls are NOT polls or samples of the views of OLO users, or even necessarily OLO viewers, but of others completely external to this Forum.

In particular, the contention over the use of the term 'illegals', one of which we are all thoroughly familiar on OLO, whether or not we agree with that use. The point is that those who favour that terminology on OLO are not part of the sample polled. The interesting thing is that amongst a sub-set of that sample that would be perhaps expected (if we are to believe the assertions of antagonists to the use of the term 'illegals' ON OLO) to PREFER to use the term 'illegals', 70% instead chose to use the term 'immigrants'.

Here are GrahamY's exact words:

<<In our most recent survey on the issue
only about 10 per cent of people nominated
it as a top-of-mind "most important issue".
(This is from a weighted sample of 599.)
Of these, 7 per cent* used a variation of
"immigrant" to describe the arrivals, while
only 2 per cent called them refugees and
1 per cent asylum-seekers.

The choice of words is significant.
Supporters of more liberal immigration laws
almost always use "refugee" or "asylum-seeker"
and tend to be Labor or Greens voters, while
Liberals, Nationals and others favour "immigrant".>>

*Should maybe have been 'percentage points'?

That some are missing the point in this discussion may also be borne out by the 'todays most popular (etc)' displays. Here's a screenshot from yesterday: http://twitpic.com/251zx3 . One from today: http://twitpic.com/2520od . Note the article never topped, and has dropped from, the display, although much discussed by some OLO users.

What seems to be indicated is that the overall concern of this set is one as to immigration, not refugees or 'illegals'. That can only be good!

Other stuff is happening.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10607#175737

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10659#176320

Forrest

If I understand your previous post correctly, you are saying that there is no point to Graham's article. I posit this because of your links to two of your own authored posts on completely different topics.

Self promotion can be healthy.

:P

As for GY's article, I concur there is no point to it, but he can at least treat his OLO audience with due respect by accurate journalism and not skewed towards either those in favour of assisting refugees or those agin' it. I leave the question of bias to our gentle readers.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10680#176462

Yabby, spot on, but you are still missing the point. These politicians who did not back Blair are not gutless.

They are International Communists who want to destroy Modern Western Democratic Capitalism, from within, by introducing Moral & Ethical Degeneration into our Society or Culture.

Multiculturalism & Mass immigration are just one of the ways they have been doing this for 50 years now.

It is not scientifically possible for anybody to be genuinely stupid enough to be introducing these policies by mistake, when they are proven failures overseas, decades ago.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8630135369495797236#

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6418456/Labour-wanted-mass-immigration-to-make-UK-more-multicultural-says-former-adviser.html

http://addictassociation.com/

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/7928812/woman-jailed-for-having-sex-with-son

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/7927676/lesbian-lovers-jailed-over-vicious-bashing

This is a deliberate plan to bankrupt our treasuries & destroy our culture. The Red/green/getup/labour Communist Coalition are trying to produce an Orwellian "1984" "Big Sista" UN NWO 4th Reich.

Hail Gillard, sieg heil, sieg heil, sieg heil.

This is a very emotive issue as can be seen
from the comments.
It already is an election issue.

Everyone is of course entitled to their opinions
but I wish that instead of appealing to people's
fears, the media, and the
politicians, would tell the truth regarding this
issue, and not use it for their own political gains.

Frankly I can't understand how such a small number
of people can actually be considered a threat to our
way of life or to this country.

They are not "illegal,"
for a start, because they are entitled to seek asylum
and they can't be considered "illegal" until their case
is heard in a court of law. All the other so called
"facts" that are being bandied about have no substance
and once investigated turn out to be merely spin.
Yet unfortunately people buy into it.

Dear oh dear...its all rather frightening and very,
very, sad. This is not the tolerant Australia that I
grew up in. I want Her back!