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. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
The importance of a stable population was driven home beautifully by Dick Smith in his docco last night.

The concern about population and sustainability really has finally become a mainstream subject.

On Q & A, the Libs’ Scott Morrison, Labs’ Tony Burke and Greens’ Bob Brown were all in agreement and in support of Dicko. Wonderful stuff! Nothing short of the best night’s television EVER!!

I reckon that 12 August 2010 will go down in history as the day that that the population / sustainability issue finally broke right through the pro-growth brick wall that has held it back for decades and entrenched its position in the mainstream debating arena and federal political sphere.

Eric, and others who have been fighting the good fight for umpteen years, you should all go out somewhere nice this Friday evening and celebrate!

Cheers ( :>)
Posted by Ludwig, Friday, 13 August 2010 8:48:02 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
Ludwig -

I think last night was good but there is a difference between making the right noises and doing the right thing. Both parties + Bob Brown say they are going to study the situation. When political parties stall for time it means "Lets hope everybody forgets about all this and then we can continue on with business as usual."

Tony Abbott has already guaranteed 170,000 immigrants next year and acted like he was slashing but that still gets us to 40 million. Labor has said that isn't a slash we were going to do that anyway. I didn't hear Morrison or Burke say that they would cut those numbers or get rid of the baby bonus.

There is still a long way to go.
Posted by ericc, Friday, 13 August 2010 9:18:35 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
Yes Eric..... you are right.

I was trying to put a positive spin on it. But yep, I'll believe in real action when I see it!

Hwaaaaw! ( ;>(
Posted by Ludwig, Friday, 13 August 2010 9:44:50 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
At first glance, this would seem to be a statement of the bleedin' obvious.

"It is easier to plan with a stable population"

But is it actually true, except in the most theoretical sense?

Let us start with the challenge of actually achieving a "stable population".

No, actually, let's start with a definition of a "stable population".

What is the ideal demographic content of such an animal? How many under-fives? How many schoolchildren? How many at university? How many actually in the work force - and, by the way, what work will be available to them?

And how many [gulp] will be allowed to be old?

You cannot just say "oh, let's stop immigration. And oh, by the way, let's stop the baby bonus", and hope that the economy will not require further adjustment.

So there are two critical issues already, that no-one has even remotely approached, let alone provided some form of vague answer for.

That also ignores the broader potential problems with the creation of what is effectively, Fortress Australia.

With all this idealistic introspection of "wouldn't it be nice if..." codswallop, it is easy to forget - or ignore - the fact that we actually occupy space on the globe.

People notice us. We trade with them. They trade with us. No-one has even started to think that one through.

I know it is election time, and you can't walk down the street without the sound of yet another dog-whistle policy making its appearance.

But this one is dumbing-down in its rawest, most insulting form. It can only take us to a place that we really don't want to get to, people.
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 13 August 2010 10:25:12 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
"That also ignores the broader potential problems with the creation of what is effectively, Fortress Australia." says Pericles.

Doesn't Pericles realize we are already living in an occupied country? Look around the big business community and see that something like 90% of our industry, mining, services, and agriculture is foreign (largely USA) owned and controlled; count the American accents you hear coming from top business executives and on radio (even from the ABC). With few exceptions, Australians have become the drones in our workforce.

Are we supposed to clutter our land with double our population so that in times of international dispute we can be conned into defending Fortress Australia for that lot?
Posted by Forkes, Friday, 13 August 2010 11:34:12 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 don’t have the least concern about other countries trading with us if we have net zero immigration. Countries trade with a variety of countries that don’t take immigrants. Countries trade with other countries that have hazardous work environments. Countries trade with other countries that have dangerously high levels of urban air pollution and unsafe drinking water for their citizens. Countries trade with other countries that torture their own citizens. Countries trade with other countries that provide funding for terrorists who attack their countries. Countries trade through third parties with countries that they have trade bans against.

Certainly the economy will change with net zero immigration. Many of those changes will be positive for the economy. Wages for the average worker will increase. Australian capitalism can thrive with 70,000 new immigrants per year. Planning for infrastructure will benefit. Certainly the environment will benefit. The standard of living will improve. Over 65's will be more highly valued. We will set an example for other countries and then we can help them stabilise their populations.
Posted by ericc, Friday, 13 August 2010 12:49:46 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. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

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