I believe the politicians are reading the vote given to the Party, "Australians Against Further Immigration" and note their low first preference vote and assume no one sees their issue as relavent.

Though I do not vote for AAFI I have attended several of their lectures only to find local Liberals and Labor Party members present. While talking to them they agree with much of the arguments put foward by the AAFI lecturer as it applies to local overpopulation issues but they still believe we need a greater population spread across Australia to sustain our markets.

Andrew

You made the following comment

'It is no secret that a large amount of the former One Nation vote went to the Coalition...'

Please explain how the only One Nation Politician ever elected to our Federal Parliament was elected by coalition voters?

She was elected Member for Ipswich. Bill Hayden's former seat and a Labor Paty stronghold. They haven't elected a Liberal or National/Country party politician ever.

Why do you politicians distort such facts?

Keith

Pauline Hanson was not elected as a One Nation politician.

The only One Nation politician elected to federal Parliament was Len Harris as a Senator for Queensland (after the candidate above him on the party's ticket was ruled ineligible). He won this seat off the National's Bil O'Chee, and when he lost it, it went back to the National's Barnaby Joyce.

There is also plenty of research done which shows where the majority of One Nation votes came from and went to. Indeed, the fact that part of the One Nation base came from traditional Labor voters, and then went from One Nation over to the Coalition is part of how John Howard built his support base in outer urban areas.

Alchemist and others

I didn't post my article or comments to win votes. I am putting forward ideas. If I formed my views purely on the basis of what might be popular, then I probably would run with an anti-immigration message. As my article infers, this is politically easier to do, which is why politicians who support high migration often don't promote it much. I think they should - one of the key points of my article - not because it will win votes, but because it is better for the country.

The big business sector has never been much of a constituency for the Democrats and we have never formed our policies based on their needs (although one should try to listen to everyone's views, including theirs and yours)

(...but to suggest our preferential voting system is "corrupt" or "illegal" is just silly. It is not perfect, but it is certainly better than the barely democratic first past the post systems in the UK, Canada and the USA.)

Jenny/popandperish - I don't really want to sidetrack into ancient internal Democrat disputes, but I remember that situation rather differently. More that ballots kept being appealed until the option of zero net migration option got up.

It probably is irrelevant in any case, as zero net migration certainly was official policy at one stage because I spent quite a bit of energy once I got into Parliament working to get it replaced and disowning it wherever possible.

I realise we will never agree on this, but I think I've probably already outlined my views enough on this in earlier responses.

Ludwig - I agree that policies aimed at increasing our own fertility rate are silly (and mostly an expensive waste of money in any case).

In regard to fertility rates, I use the one the ABS uses. Given that's what they base their population projections on (and which I follow), I don't think it matters much how it differs from the 'effective fertility rate' ..... (although I will check my assumption on that with others just to make sure)

Andrew you say:

"..politicians who support high migration often don't promote it much. "

Is this why the democrats don't promote their high immigration policy? Because you think it may be unpopular? I think we may be getting close to the truth now!

You also say " I think they (politicians) should" Well why dont they? On the Deomcrats web site for a start.

You also say why you support high immigration levels " one of the key points of my article - not because it will win votes, but because it is better for the country"

I repeat my earlier question; Why?

What reasons do you have for your position? In what ways is it better for us?

If you have a good case for high immigration, then tell us! This is a forum, not a game of hide and seek!

Popandperish, welcome to OLO. An excellent post.

The Democrats membership supported low immigration but was overruled by their executive….three times. Fascinating!!

Ericc, I see it differently.

You wrote; “He [Andrew Bartlett] has a quick look around and sees that Labour and Liberal also support high immigration, so what has he got to lose. It is the sensible political approach to getting re-elected. “

I don’t think this is a sensible approach at all. Why would people in favour of high immigration vote for the Democrats when they can vote for the Libs or Labs? The Demos are doing themselves out of votes and a purpose for existing by not offering much that is significantly different to the old dinosaurs.

If they offered something strongly philosophically different they would stand a very good chance of scoring a much higher vote. What have they got to lose? If they stood for sustainability, including low immigration, a reversal of pro-natalist policies, maximised push for improved efficiencies in resource usage as well as alternative energy sources… and all that sort of stuff, then they would be on a real winner.

In this political world, if a small and fading party just tags along with the big players, they are doomed… for sure.

“Our job is to convince the general voting population.”

Yes. What better way is there than to convince a struggling political party to come onside and then start a massive publicity campaign?

We struggle to get the message of sustainability out there to the masses. Even with high-profile people like Tim Flannery and Ian Lowe who are regularly in the media, the vested-interest pro-growthers have it all over us. We desperately need a political force to take up the struggle.

Getting the Democrats, or the Greens, to get back to the core issues could well be the key to triggering the desperately needed sustainability revolution in this country.

What better political platform could there be than sustainability? Afterall, if we fail to very quickly prepare for peak oil and other sustainability issues, not much else is going to matter