Pericles,

In the dog in the manger fable, the hay was of no use to the dog, so he could easily let the ox eat and find a comfortable place to sleep somewhere else. You might have a point if we were standing in front of a vast green fertile hinterland that was unpopulated, but Australia really isn't a big country. It is a small to medium sized country wrapped around a big desert. Our survival and prosperity ultimately depend on our resource base, including the ability of our environment to take abuse. In 1994, the Australian Academy of Sciences looked at carrying capacity and issued a report recommending a maximum population of 23 million. A lot of their concerns were reiterated in the 2010 Long-Term Physical Implications report, which was released on Christmas Eve to avoid scrutiny in the media.

http://www.immi.gov.au/media/publications/research/_pdf/physical-implications-migration-summary.pdf

The government's own State of the Environment reports have shown deterioration of essentially all environmental indicators apart from urban air quality. Why do you and James O'Neill think that you understand these issues better than scientists who have been studying them for decades? As well as ignoring current environmental and resource issues, you ignore the need for adequate safety margins, for example, if some of the nastier climate change predictions come to pass.

You also ignore quality of life issues, possibly because they don't impinge much on people like yourself, even though most people would rather not live like battery chickens. The cost of an average house has doubled to tripled in terms of the median wage since the early 1970s, mostly because of the cost of the land the house sits on, even though the average block size is a lot smaller.

(cont'd)

(cont'd)

<politicians of integrity are supposed to lead, rather than slavishly follow the polls>

Every tyrant has said that since the year dot. As Jared Diamond pointed out in "Collapse", whether a society collapses or solves its problems and survives largely depends on whether the elite can insulate themselves from the problems their policies are causing for the rest of the population.

You keep vaguely referring to economic benefits, but exactly what are they - for people who aren't rich and don't work in the immigration industry? You accept the Productivity Commission finding that the per capita economic benefits of mass migration are small. Do you also accept that the findings that they are mostly distributed to owners of capital and the migrants themselves, or the finding that mass migration depresses wages? If mass migration is so beneficial, what about the good performance on the WEF Competitiveness Index and UN HDI of Sweden, Finland, Japan, Germany, etc., despite low or no population growth? Why have ordinary people in the US fared so badly despite high immigration, which you say is so beneficial?

http://stateofworkingamerica.org/chart/swa-wages-figure-4c-change-real-hourly-wages/

You keep reiterating that the migrants are better off. This may be true, but foreigners live (and want to live) in independent countries. They have a responsibility to solve their own problems. I have no problem with helping them, but not if we need to walk over our fellow citizens to do it. I don't accept the view that the common people have responsibilities as citizens (to enlist in wartime for example), but the elite owe them nothing.

<< It is always enjoyable hearing your opinion of my contributions, Ludwig. >>

Yes I know, Pericles. You obviously get considerable entertainment out of the manner in which I and many others respond to you. You seem to relish discontent, and dare I say it; you find any expressions of agreement with you downright eye-rollingly boring!

You are not on this forum for the right reasons.

Oow, let me retract that statement. I must not stoop to your level of making assertions when I am absolutely sure of their veracity.

It would seem that you are not on this forum for the right reasons.

<< … the gist of your complaint has always been that big business has too much influence on government policy, is it not? >>

Der… yeayus!

<< Exactly how far is "eliminating the bias" away from "cutting them out of the loop"? >>

A bl88dy long way, you tw!t

Woops, I mean, … er…um….no, I can’t come up with a better way of saying it!! ( :>|

A better balance, dear Pericles, not a jump to the loopy la la end of the spectrum, this is what we need. A better balance between the wishes of big business, ordinary citizens, lobby groups and scientists, rather than an overwhelming bias towards the wishes of those who can throw big money at the government and BUY big favours accordingly.

Regarding OPV vs CPV, you wrote:

<< Perhaps you could explain how any increased fairness would come about. >>

Read all of my posts on this thread, not just the ones addressed to you. I refer you to a previous post:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=14508#250920

Dear me, Ludwig, you do seem to be getting those knickers in a twist.

>>It would seem that you are not on this forum for the right reasons.<<

There are "right" and "wrong" reasons for being on this forum? Wow, that's news to me. I was under the impression that it is an opinion forum, and that the only criterion is expressing that opinion.

As you will have noticed by now, in my opinion you frequently write a heap of unmitigated rot about the "overcrowding" of Australia, along with a heap of unsubstantiated conjecture about what effect an increase in population will have on our lifestyle. If this opinion upsets you, I suggest you tell Nicola Roxon. She will then pass a law that makes my opinion of you a criminal act, on the basis that you feel offended. Poor dear.

As for your ideas as to the increased level of fairness we can expect from OPV, I thank you for the link, but would gently point out that it was completely empty of any illumination.

>>This has stopped me from voting for environmentally friendly / sustainability-minded candidates/parties or for anyone who is better than the Liblabs.<<

The obvious point that you have missed, of course, is that it is not the candidates that are important here, but the votes. From the performance of the Greens (Christine Milne following in Bob Brown's footsteps with her fruitloop observations on the rule of law being just the most recent example) it is unlikely that a "sustainable population party" would get much support. By definition, they would be anti-business, and - for the moment at least - more people rely upon business than on government for their daily bread.

But that is conjecture, as well as entirely beside the point, which is about representing more accurately the views of the people.

Explain again, if you will, how the change in voting requirement from CPV to OPV will automatically guarantee more effective representation.

Pretend for a moment that I am really, really stupid, and spell it out for me.

Thank you in advance.

@Pericles. The CPU vs OPV debate is a red herring. The Libs are currently toying with a change because, and only because, they think it will give them an electoral advantage. Hardly an ethical stance but then why would they break the habits of a lifetime and do something because it was the right thing to do.

In my opinion both options are seriously flawed. If one wishes to get an electoral result that actually reflects the main opinion of the voter, as opposed to their second, third etc choice, then proportional representation is the only realistic option. Most of Europe has it in one form or another and New Zealand changed in the 1980s and recently confirmed that choice overwhelmingly in a referendum.

Making a threshold of say 5 percent eliminates the crazy fringe which preferential voting does not as recent experience in xthe Senate shows, viz Steve Fielding and others.

Australians have an unfortunate tendency to believe that whatever they are doing at any given time is the best option imaginable even though nowhere else in the world agrees. A Bill of Rights is another classic illustration of the point.

I agree with most of what you say, except to query why you expend time and energy responding to Divergence, Ludwig and their ilk. You are not going to persuade them of anything and the entertainment value is a diminishing value.

Quite possibly, James O'Neill.

>>If one wishes to get an electoral result that actually reflects the main opinion of the voter, as opposed to their second, third etc choice, then proportional representation is the only realistic option<<

There are several flavours of this, too, though, and if we ever do get around to picking one, it is sure to be the very least effective option available.

The issue is, though, that changing the system requires political will, a quality that is conspicuously absent. Having reached a point where our politics is a mixture of the dynastic and the venal, I see little opportunity for a rational overhaul. All those concerned have become so accustomed to protecting and enhancing their own personal position within the gravy-train culture, that any genuine issue is drowned out by self-interest.

>>I agree with most of what you say, except to query why you expend time and energy responding to Divergence, Ludwig and their ilk. You are not going to persuade them of anything and the entertainment value is a diminishing value<<

I am enough of a realist to know that there was never any chance that logic or common sense would ever be persuasive in their case. Nevertheless, the conversation keeps me abreast of the thought-processes they employ, and the exercise of responding to them occasionally comes in useful in the real world.

have a great day.