For a start, Labor would do in 12 months what the Howard Government had done in 10 years; Call the Howard Government the Fabian effect. The Labor party stands for nothing but Proletariat Altruistic Idiocy. Over the same period of time we would be totally decimated and probably returned to primitive tribalism, or speaking Mandarin, only now we are 60% decimated.
Even after 10 years with a pseudo conservative government we have achieved every single Proletariat goal conceivable; and they still wing and wine and bounce around in their rubber rooms.
You have to agree with Leigh, the whole fraudulent system can rot in hell. The Idiots have overridden the Nation. And looted it out of existence.
The problem is, They have totaly stuffed up the whole world, and there is nowhere left to run. The State has destroyed us.

Wiping out farmers: now where did that proletariat Idea come from; they wouldn’t be picking on the bourgeois would they?

Dagget, I suspect I have a little more understanding of the agricultural scene than you do if you rely on the SMH for all your info. Yes there is a drought, but you have interpreted a throwaway line "pretty soon we'll see desert from the Great Dividing Range" as being fact. Without rain a great deal of the land currently looks like desert, of that there is no question, but it is not desertification.
"What of the cost in green house gas emissions of water recycling?"
This would have to be the weakest arguement ever against water recycling. If GH gas is emitted for any cause surely this would have to be one of the most important. Our civilisations are based on delivery of clean water, and our lifestyle requires more than is strictly necessary. One way to supply these additional needs is to not pollute our harbours and rivers with run off and nutrient rich treated sewerage(or untreated as is sometimes the case).
The Qld govt is doing what it needs to for the population. Severe drought has pushed them to consider recycling, build more dams(they have been earmarked for decades) and currently exploring cloud seeding. Upgrading transport etc will increase employment and no doubt employ immigrants. You have stated they are already behind on this issue.
Govt could employ more people in the tax area, but this is does not add to economic growth. The comparison is a bit silly.

KAEP, you ask, in your opening post, "Why are Australians so accepting of this iniquity [the sacrifice of living standards to accomodate immigration], subversion of our democratic values and the monopolised media propaganda that is constantly pushing only its side of the immigration debate[?]".

I suggest that a large majority of Australians are not at all accepting of these things.

Could it be with respect to "democratic values" that Australians, in the great majority of cases, have simply been consistently ill-represented for over a century, and only subliminally recognise this? If you think this is true you will have to look beyond the presumed influence of historically prominent political personalities on party policies for an explanation. I suggest the explanation lies in a mixture of complacency and naivety, concentrated most notably amongst those who are attracted to political life, and their accolytes, with respect to the very administration of the electoral process itself.

The first question of such seems always to have been "how can we work the system to maximize the chance of winning?", rather than "is the contest being conducted according to the rules?". Now being able to determine whether the rules are being observed requires first a knowledge of the rules. A detailed, thoroughgoing knowledge of the rules, a knowledge acquired for the purpose of ensuring compliance, rather than acquired in order to "get around" their seemingly inconvenient provisions! Fail to acquire it, and you fall into the hands of those who have, those who may be bent upon using that knowledge for an entirely different end: the subversion of the electoral process.

I do think the term Constitutional values to be a more focussed expression than "democratic values". It implies an actual written "rule book", a standard to which the elected should be held accountable. A standard politicians seem consistently to strive to evade.

The link to a previous discussion, "The New Migration" , could prove informative.
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5021 .
Also, re Daggett's first post, "Rex Connor: The Other Dismissal"
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5018

Forrest,

If you are right and Australians do care, then they will THINK and VOTE CONTRARY: Vote Labor Federally and Libs in the states. So, no other discussion of this point is necessary.

If political parties still keep selling Aussies our to overseas interests then we can keep voting CONTRARY until their PERSONAL profit motive for BETRAYAL of this nation is utterly stamped out.

This nation is a essentially desert and destined to become the world's mine. Howard is intent on using media to hide this fact and position himself to manage it all with minimal interference from Australians who are stakeholders of that wealth.

So, Howard is just doing a snow job on all of us with his immigration policies.

The more immigrants and the more we have to compete to survive. The more state governments fail to provide adequate services and we will be far too stressed to challenge Howard. That is his plan. That is why he has to go.

Australian history, Constitutional values and Democratic values are largely irrelevant because they were never meant to deal with enslavement issues apart from those of Colonial rule. The new enslavement threat is sequestration of critical economic information through global corporate ownership and proxy media propaganda, keeping us in the dark. All of which Howard has embraced VERY RECENTLY with gusto. How the blue blazes is our 'War-of-the-Roses-constitution' and antiquated 'parli-a-ment' supposed to deal with THAT?

Think and vote CONTRARY.

And while voting, spare a thought for the Fijians who have had to fight to take back THEIR country, 'Lest-we-Forget' it may be our turn next.

As for economic outcomes, it does not matter who governs Australia in the short term as long as in the long term WE the people continue to own our own assets and chiefly our own mineral assets.

It is disturbing that gold mines in Australia are now 80% foreign owned. We don't have much time.

STOP Howard's way before he totally swamps our voice with more migrants and sells everything in HIS country that is not glued down in blood.

Rojo,

This country cannot support a “larger population than currently”. It has the oldest, most impoverished soil in the world. One third of the continent is habitable, and that’s where all the migrants want to go.

The country towns you talk about don’t have the water the cities have, apart from brackish bore water if they are lucky. It is too expensive to provide the services city people enjoy. The country population is shrinking. There are no jobs. Migrants will just not go to go to the country.

We need to start reducing our population now.

City dwellers will have to constrain water use even further, you say. How the bloody hell can we have more people when we have to reduce water used by the current 25 million already here? Most of them will continue to live in cities because they have to. Most of Australia is a desert. Restrictions cut use to that of 50 years ago!

As one who has been in the water business, I can tell you desalination is grossly expensive and uses huge amounts of electricity, something else we are expected to cut back on.

Your “driven” economy will not provide water.

Dagget,

I probably wouldn’t understand why you prefer one political party to another, either.

I didn’t know about the AWB scandal prior to 2003? Did you? I agree, that now we do know, it’s a big strike against them – for incompetence if not for actual complicity.

I did say I HAVE voted for them in the past. I did say that I don’t know what I’m going to do in 2007. Selective reading on your part just to air your own views on Iraq etc?

I do think it is conceivable that any party in Australia could do a worse job than the Coalition, yes! Hawke and Keating have already demonstrated that. Don't forget Whilam.

What do I imagine can be achieved by failing to kick out the incumbent government in 2007? It will keep out the socialistic ALP which simply does not know how to handle money.

rojo,

I would suggest to you that if our agricultural land is not gravely degraded by the abuses of mechanised monoculture and the ill-conceived use of irrigation over many decades, it would be a miracle. Of course, Australia is already an arid and dry country, but that is no guarantee that it can't get a lot worse.

I regarding GHG emnissions from water recycling, I was suggesting that it is stupid to grow our population and then have to depend upon means which further damage the environment in order to supply basic necessities. The operation of water-recycling will require the burning of finite, non-renewable fossil fuels and will help make the prospect of runaway global warming even more likely.

We should understand that the spectacular growth in the number of our species from less than 500,000,000 to 6,500,000,000 in around two centuries was only made possible because of the use of captured solar ennergy in the form of fossil fuels. Once that runs out, no-one knows just how it will be possible to feed everybody.

If we don't aim to limit human numbers to what we know are within the capacity of our natural environment to support then the survival of our society cannot be assured in the longer term. If we continue to push as far beyond those natural limits as we have today, then catastrophe is assured.

You wrote: "One way to supply these additional needs is to not pollute our harbours and rivers with run off and nutrient rich treated sewerage ... "

(ToBeContinued)