Foxy “The fact is that immigration policies are controlled by world opinion.”

One word, Bunkum.

The Australian government decides migration rates, not some hidden hand of “world opinion”.

“So it is a very difficult balancing act for any government to sustain.”

The Howard government managed to generate huge numbers of jobs.

At the moment jobs are disappearing almost as fast as the evaporated under Keating…

It seems to me the efforts of the Howard government were more successful than the socialist governments which have flanked it.

Of course there are several aspects to investing money in a country which in turn leads to employing people,

The following are not part of any policy but observations of an number of influences which immediately spring to mind (but not all the influences)

Costs of production = Australia has a natural disadvantage compared to other nations in SE Asia due to pay rates and work practices (eg Australia and New Zealand are the only place in the world which have “long service leave” as a cost of employment.)

Ease of development … Australia has high governmental interference (building codes, EPA licencing etc) = a disadvantage

Technical ability of employee pool = Australia has an advantage at present but this advantage is being eroded by better education in SE Asia

Capital security = Australia has a huge advantage based on the history of political stability which makes an investment decision more favourable in Australia rather than (say) China or Malaysia

The politics of China are still uncertain. A lot of investors will be watching the reaction of the Chinese communist party to the recession which they have to deal with.

Mahatia implemented some very nasty pro-Malay laws which force companies to employ dead-beats in executive positions. These policies hugely detract from anyone investing in Malaysia.

South America is a hot bed of political instability. It is one of the things which has ensured the low level of economic prosperity of the entire continent, result, levels of poverty founded upon political instability.

As I said earlier, Australia found the lowest rates of unemployment under the liberal coalition government.

despite all the squandering of resources in"stimulation packages" the unemplyment rate is heading upward.

Some would say well if the liberals were in power it would be going up because of the EFC and so it might but

Would it be going up as fast?

Or

Would the policies of a Liberal government be better than the stop-start, pull this economic leaver... now push it.. approach of the Socialists?

It is a slam-dunk...

the proven ability of the liberals to effectively manage the economy leaves the socialists left standing in their dust...

In this Crisis, we would be better if the liberals were in government.

The question is not

"Have the Libs. lost the plot"

the real question is

"Will the Socialists ever discover the plot?"

And

Will our children be left paying for a range of “packages” which failed every time?

Col, your rather one-eyed conservative view, favouring the coalition, overlooks a few things.

1. Do we want slave labour/sweat shop conditions in Australia? I know I don't, and the unions have gone a long way towards addressing that
2. The Coalition, when it was in power, seriously demonised the unemployed and the poor
3. Part of what you believe was some sort of "boom" under the coalition was the simple result of the economic cycle
4. The government/s have the power to lower various taxes (payroll tax immediately springs to mind but there are others) to promote manufacturing in Australia. Whatever happened to the "Buy Australian Made" campaign?

As for "our children" having to pay for what you seem to regard as profligacy by the "socialist" agenda, well, so what? Life is like that, and difficult times call for difficult measures. If you want to leave a better place for "our children", put some investment and energy into tackling climate change as well as the social and financial agendas.

I agree with you about migration though. Howard set an agenda there. Unfortunately it included the "Tampa" embarrasment, and the "SeivX", Nauru and other ghettos. I think immigration does need to be managed in terms of its relationship to current skill shortages and employment outlooks in Australia though.

Nicky

Nicky while Col Rouge and I have nearly found common ground in one thread we never will in politics IR and much more.
One of us is going to be very disappointed after the next two elections.
One of us has not moved on from past events like the prime minister of England removed by her own party Thatcher the iron maiden.
We almost over night it seems went from boom to bust, strange that the home of capitalism killed the world economy.
Fear of socialists Col is akin to being afraid the sun will not come up, it will they never will.
How many of us who posted in this thread are not stunned that pillars of world conservatism support these measures but not the Republicans and Turnbulls Wil Robinson's?
We may see two decades pass before either gets back in power, policy's not obstruction are needed.

Belly

As Foxy Libs lost the Plot thread is getting a bit off track I will open one on unions.

We have worked shoulder to shoulder with both the last two X Federal Leaders of the AMIEU - Tom Hannon and Ross Richerson.

They can be seen on each of our web sites. Other organisations such as PAACT have also worked very very close with the old Union Heads and Branches for many years before us.

However something has happened to interfere with many years hard work from AMIUE Unions.
If you click on their sites you see a huge change now.

So belly looking forward to discuss why this has occurred on the union thread.=

Union urges protection from imports
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25000214-5013871,00.html

February 03, 2009
Article from: The Australian

THE nation's biggest blue-collar union has called on the Rudd Government to provide protection during the global financial crisis for struggling local steel and aluminium companies battling cheaper imports...

Union urges protection from imports
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25000214-5013871,00.html

Foxy wrote: "The fact is that immigration policies are controlled by world opinion."

Absolute rubbish.

Australia is a sovereign country with the right to determine its own immigration policies. The phantom of "world opinion" doesn't come into it.

"We have to appear to be participating in the mass population movement around the world if we want co-operation and assistance from other nations we have no choice."

Foxy, you appear to be very naive.

The overwhelming majority of countries do not accept immigrants. Only Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United States, Britain and few other Western countries accept permanent migrants and offer them citizenship. Australia, Canada, and New Zealand, in particular, stand out as freaks among the world's nations in terms of the huge numbers of immigrants they accept ever year. Australia, with one of the highest per capita immigration intakes in the world, is certainly not the norm.

"As far as big business and lobbies are concerned - they do generate jobs, they make the economy go around..."

Contrary to popular myth, our economy does not rely on immigration. In fact, we would do just fine without it. Unfortunately, we have a situation in Australia where our country's immigration policies have been essentially hijacked by special interest groups, mainly big business, which views immigration as both an endless source of cheap labour and additional consumer demand. Meanwhile, the rest of us are forced to carry the substantial economic, social, cultural, and environmental costs incurred by immigration. In effect, the benefits of immigration are privitised and concentrated in the hands of a few, while the costs are socialised, i.e., the average citizen has to endure all the pain with none of the gain.