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 > Who really won the North Sydney by-election? > Comments

Who really won the North Sydney by-election? : Comments

By Andrew McNamara, published 11/12/2015

Only one party has anything to celebrate out of the North Sydney by-election, including bettering their previous best by 200 per cent.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
Many thanks for finding a positive amongst the negatives. What a dreary contest it was.
Posted by JohnBennetts, Friday, 11 December 2015 8:23:13 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
Who ? Mr 3% ? Who really won the North Sydney by-election ? With 3% ?

In your dreams :)

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Friday, 11 December 2015 8:41:26 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
Great article! Sustainable Australia is concerned that growth, both of population and per capita consumption, is exhausting the limits of our finite home leaving nothing for our children, later generations or other species. With supporters coming from across the political spectrum, Sustainable Australia has the vision and commitment to boldly step out and offer leadership on the most critical issues of our time. Congratulations William Bourke. Sustainable Australia is a party to look out for in 2016.
Posted by Tabitha, Friday, 11 December 2015 9:05:20 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
Loudmouth,

Of course Sustainable Australia didn't win, but this party was only registered in 2010. Considering that they started with less than 0.1% of the vote in their initial elections, I would say that 3% and beating all the other minor parties was very promising. It takes time for a new political party to build support.
Posted by Divergence, Friday, 11 December 2015 10:09:53 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
Hi Divergence,

Good luck then at the next elections. If the Labor party fields a candidate, you might pick up another 2%.

I'm puzzled by this strange belief that Australia's population is growing too fast - have I got that right ? Without migration, our population would be close to ZPG, and, apart from the fact of people living longer, could soon be declining. And without skilled migration, migration of relatively young people, our economy could soon reach similar static levels, and also shrink.

Europe and Japan's populations are either static or shrinking, or would be if it weren't for the simple fact that people are living longer. In other words, birth-rates are not keeping up.

Africa's birth-rate is declining. China's is, of course, close to static, and will decline over the next century.

The sky might be falling, but not for anything to do with population. sorry.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Friday, 11 December 2015 1:29:47 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
Interesting article.
One issue though was neither canvassed by the writer nor by the media generally: why was the by-election, which could have been avoided, not avoided?

Let's assume that Turnbull was agreeable to giving Hockey the plum job in Washington DC as a 'thank you' for disappearing from the domestic political radar.

Mr T could say, "Yes Joe, your wish is my command, but understand that it's a poor look to stiff the taxpayers up to $1m for an unnecessary by-election. And if you think the Liberal Party will spend, say anything up to $1m to shore up votes in North Sydney, you've got another thing coming'.

Surely Turnbull could call the current ambassador (whose term is up in February) and extend his stay by say one year. By then an election would have been held.

Soon after the results are in, Hockey could scoot off to Washington. That could mean that Beazley may serve most but not all of his extension.

Then again, why not allow the former member for Brand (WA) to continue serving Australia with distinction for a full one more year?

Let's not forget, this is a guy who was appointed by Rudd and has his term extended by Abbott. And if I recall correctly, was spoken of favourably by Howard.

One impressive individual.
Posted by Jonathan J. Ariel, Friday, 11 December 2015 2:38:13 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
Sorry, another bunch of naive idealistic idiots who are going to ruin the land of OZ by splitting the vote still further. we need LESS political parties not more. Every new political party is a disaster waiting to happen by splitting the vote & making life easier for the major mistakes parties.
Posted by imacentristmoderate, Friday, 11 December 2015 5:22:30 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
Loudmouth,

Soon, as estimated by the ABS, would be some time in the 2030s, and even then the decline in Australia's immigration would be very slow at first. See my comments in the New Dick Smith Party thread last Wednesday and you will see links to evidence that high density urban living dramatically depresses people's willingness to have children. This effect appears to hold true all over the developed world,. Desired family size in Australia is high enough to keep the population stable even without net immigration. See

https://aifs.gov.au/publications/its-not-lack-wanting-kids-report-ferti/4-aspirations-about-having-children

If the government were to stop forcing people to live in child unfriendly ways, fertility rates would probably rise to replacement level. For that matter, there is no problem with having a bit of top-up immigration if we need it.

Global population trends aren't as rosy as you make out. Nigeria's fertility rate is still over 5 births per woman, for example. The slow decline in fertility in the more recalcitrant cultures is why the UN has to keep revising its medium projection upward. We are doing serious damage to our life support systems with even the existing population and so many living in poverty. See this chart from an article in Science, one of the very top journals

http://steadystate.org/wp-content/uploads/Planetary-Boundaries.F.-Pharand-Desch%C3%AAnes-Globa%C3%AFa.jpg

The Australian Academy of Science looked at the resource and environment issues here in 1994 and recommended 23 million as a safe upper limit. So far as I know, they haven't revised it upwards. If you don't live in a big city, you might not have noticed, but quality of life is getting a lot worse for most people: more congestion and longer commutes, less open space, unaffordable housing, especially housing suitable for families, an enormous infrastructure backlog that the government can't address while immigration remains so high, permanent water restrictions in the last drought costing the community more than a billion dollars, due to such things as cracks in walls and foundations, and so on. Don't be so sure that we are going to be seen as fringe nutters.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/the-tide-of-public-opinion-is-turning-against-immigration/story-e6freuzr-1226362835067
Posted by Divergence, Friday, 11 December 2015 5:22:31 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
Certainly is wonderful news.
Can only improve as more thinking people realise that we cannot keep overloading this country and this planet.
Sadly there will always be those who seem to believe that another 83 million people a year increase is actually a decrease.
Dream on and keep your heads in the sand. It looks much better from down there doesn`t it?
Posted by ateday, Friday, 11 December 2015 5:23:09 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
imacentrist moderate,

You might be right if we had a first past the post voting system, because such a system effectively forces you to vote for the lesser evil. With preferential voting, you can vote for your first choice and allot preferences in favour of the lesser evil. Do you really think that the major parties have done such a great job running this country? Government is taking a bigger share of GDP than in the 1970s, when the aged pension wasn't means tested and tertiary education was free (if you could meet the entrance requirements).
Posted by Divergence, Friday, 11 December 2015 5:31:08 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
Hi Ateday,

Don't confuse decline in population (which obviously isn't happening yet) with decline in the rate of growth of population. A few decades ago, it was close to 2 % p.a., mainly due to improvements in medical services (hence lower But if your figure of 83 million increase (in 2014?) is correct, then the rate of growth is down to barely 1.1% p.a. And even that may be the consequence of better medical services.

Given the rate of advances in medical treatments, rising standards of living, improvements in women's rights in the non-Muslim world and thus better education for women, etc., the combined effects of all of those factors might result in a levelling of world population in 40 or 50 years, and then a very gradual - 0.1% p.a. - decline.

If this is at all accurate, then world population may reach 9.5-10 billion by 2060, and halve by about 2830 or 2850: my best bet is about July 8, 2841, at about twenty to six pm. And it could halve again, to around 2.5 billion, by very roughly March 3561 +/- 20 yrs.

So what's your scenario ?

Cheers,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Saturday, 12 December 2015 10:12:13 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
LM,
We are a million miles, and probably extinction first, away from a population growth rate of less than replacement.
Dream on and keep that head buried.
Posted by ateday, Saturday, 12 December 2015 12:14:41 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
Hi Ateday,

Thanks for that unnecessary attempted kick in the nuts. Do you mean 'a population growth rate of less than replacement' world-wide or in individual countries ? After all, that's already happening. Russia's population is about to start declining, partly because all the blokes are alcoholics and nobody wants to live there.

Africa's population will keep growing quite healthily, perhaps for another century, to counter the declines elsewhere, before it stabilises. As well, a large number of Africans will be migrating anyway to some of those areas of population decline, in order to provide the necessary highly skilled labour.

So I don't see anything to worry about. Even with global warming, which will affect the northern hemisphere more than the southern, vast areas will be opened up to grain production as the potential growing areas move north, since the northern hemisphere contains so much more of the world's landmass.

You can ignore all this if you like and run around like a headless chook, but it will still happen.

Cheers,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Saturday, 12 December 2015 3:44:12 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
Seriously M'dear, I just don't give a dam!

It just doesn't matter who won given it is always a politician and what's worse, just another yes man/party hack!?
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Sunday, 13 December 2015 12:56:58 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
Loudmouth,

This link from the UN shows the various contributions to population growth in projections for the world, and it will also display them for you for the different countries and regions.

http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/theme/trends/dem-comp-change/animated-figures/index.html

The expected world total by 2100 is more than 11 billion people, with no sign of a downturn. The difference between you and Ateday is that you don't see a problem with this, while a lot of us are very worried about what this extra pressure will do to our environmental life support systems.

"Almost one quarter of the world's population lives in regions where groundwater is being used up faster than it can be replenished."

http://www.nature.com/news/demand-for-water-outstrips-supply-1.11143

This is for today's population, not the 11 billion plus expected in 2100. When the groundwater goes, so does the food production.
Posted by Divergence, Sunday, 13 December 2015 1:37:37 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
Hi Divergence,

I wouldn't worry if I were you - technology will be developed, by hungry capitalists looking to turn any good idea into good money, so I reckon she'll be jake.

By 2025, wind and solar power will be so much cheaper than using coal that the infrastructure, wind towers, solar arrays, will be actually be manufactured by the use of wind and solar power - of if not, then by clean nuclear power.

World food production is doubling every forty-odd years, slightly out-pacing population growth. Some of the biggest rivers in the world are completely unharnessed, so both water reticulation and power distribution have huge potential yet.

And with global warming in the northern hemisphere, food production areas will be opened up on a massive scale.

Future economies will require far fewer unskilled people, and far more skilled people - male and female. As women's education improves, the birth-rate will decline and fertility will approach ZPG - populations will keep rising only because people will be living longer - and working longer.

It's all good !

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Sunday, 13 December 2015 3:16:43 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
big winner??
3% !!
there is spin and there is spin ..... and then there is this article
Posted by Shalmaneser, Monday, 14 December 2015 2:31:01 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. 3
  5. All

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