Ludwig,
I agree with you about Kelvin Thompson, he seems to have the right philosphy about population.

Carr spoke about population, yes but I think it was only in relation to the impact it was having on Sydney. To him Penrith was traveling to the West.

I dunno about popular former premiers, I felt sorry for Kristine Kennealy as I thought she was only made premier, by the powers that be, to try and gain the 'womens vote' to prop up a failing government.

In different circumstances, she may have been alright but the cast was set before she got the office.

Belly, I know you basically agree with me about population and sustainability. But that makes it all the stranger as to why you would support the likes of Rudd, or anyone that will just continue with the same old Labor worship of all growth and anything that can possibly be described as growth or help contribute to it!

<< MOST are driven not by sustainability, not by understanding growth is not always good. >>

Yes, but if they started hearing the right sort of message from our government, or opposition, they’d soon understand just how important a sustainable future is, and that it is not a matter sustainability versus current standard of living, it is a matter of protecting a half-decent standard of living, in the face of enormous looming threats to it.

I’d say that a very large portion of our populace is very concerned about the future and will warm very well to a political party that starts espousing some real ideas about how to best cope with it.

Who out there really thinks that our government or opposition is actually taking us in the right direction at the moment?

I bet there aren’t too many at all.

There is a lot of simmering discontent about our immigration rate. So I’d reckon that whichever party espoused a big cut in immigration would gain a great deal of support straight away.

Under a Carr/Thomson leadership team, that first big step would be bound to win them massive support and put them on a very good footing for taking forth a holistic sustainability strategy.

Banjo, that lady, and she knew it, was a tool of Labors worst.
Ludwig, sorry bloke,you have a blind spot. the truth is both party's, no matter what they say, want a big Australia.
Further, even if , and it will, it brings great harm, most want it too, greed beats common sense hands down, for now.
So in my view, you target Rudd, for thinking as nine tenths of this country CURRENTLY DOES.
An election is won on self interest/leaders personalty/women liking his face/men not liking female leaders.
RATIONALITY is about last.
Saw Gillard today, press interview,her normal self confident band master directing who would ask next question.
It was close!tripped over a chair trying to turn her off!
Made it! rolled under a table and fired the remote, got it done!

So did anyone read V.G Childe's "How Labour Governs" as cited in the OP?
I've read the introduction and the first three chapters, I've run across his views in another context, as a Stalinist his ideas about the development of European society were not only coloured by his politics but flat out wrong, however this is an interesting piece, or "artifact":
http://www.marxists.org/archive/childe/how-labor-governs/index.htm

<< …the truth is both party's, no matter what they say, want a big Australia >>

I’m not so sure about that, Belly.

Gillard was presumably being entirely honest when she came out against Rudd’s ‘Big Australia’ rhetoric, as soon as she became PM.

My guess is that there are plenty of good people within the party who don’t like the idea at all, but are unable to speak out for fear of running afoul of their colleagues.

Of course, Labor is intimately close to big business, and it is they who want a big Australia…. and have the power over the party to make them tow their line.

I admire Kelvin Thomson for very openly expressing views that run counter to the notion of a big Australia or continuous rapid growth.

It is very interesting that he has been allowed to do this at all, let alone frequently and in detail, for a number of years now.

The message I take from this is that Labor wants Thomson’s message to get out there and actually wants to move towards his suggested low-immigration stable-population ideals…. but is just totally unable to do so because of the stranglehold the big-donations big-business sector has on them.

continued

Belly, it is so totally the time for a major change!

You can see the need for it, but you say that the time is not right.

Believe me, it is, absolutely. For two reasons:

1. We can’t go on being grossly antisustainable. The longer we do it, the more of a crisis we will run into and the harder it will be to implement policies to try and pull out of it.

2. And very importantly, LABOR NEEDS TO REINVENT ITSELF NOW!! It is going down big-time if it doesn’t. So it has all the motivation in the world to do this!

Hey, just today, Labor has ‘compromised’ on asylum seeker policy very considerably. So it can go against prior doctrine if it really wants to. It CAN change. It is not the completely unmovable dinosaur that it often appears to be.

And remember who it was that stuffed up asylum seeker policy so critically badly. Yes, one K Rudd!

If he were to become Labor leader again, you could say goodbye to any sort of sustainability platform coming out of Labor, at least for another year or so until the party becomes thoroughly sick of its new old reinvented leader and dumps him midstream a second time!! !!

<< Made it! rolled under a table and fired the remote, got it done! >>

Haaahahaha! ( :>)