<< …history shows quite categorically that NSW experienced net outward migration throughout his tenure… >>

What?? I don’t think so! Methinks you have misinterpreted the data that you provided the link for. Yes NSW has the biggest transmigration exodus, but it also has the biggest immigrant influx. So there is a pretty strong net gain overall, and Sydney’s and the whole state’s population continues to increase rapidly.

So, all considered, Carr didn’t do too badly in his tenure, when you compare it to all other state premiers across the country over the last, say, 30 years.

But all of this is really beside the point.

Bob Carr has the right political philosophy, which this country DESPERATELY needs to adopt, and which really is amazingly different to that currently being exercised by his party!

THIS is the all-important point. And it’s one that you can’t argue with, can you Pericles.

You're starting to sound desperate, Ludwig.

>>What happened to you on the ‘World food day’ thread Pericles? You know when you’ve been thoroughly trounced eh?<<

It's not a good look, you know. But if you are that clamorous for attention, I'll drop in a little later to calm you down.

Now, back to the matter in hand.

(Incidentally, don't think I hadn't noticed that you have hijacked yet another thread with your single-issue fanaticism. I think I'll start a thread on the history of decimal currency, or some such banality, and see how long it takes you to shift the discussion onto population control. My money would be on thirty seconds, tops)

<<Bob Carr did nothing for the State during his reign… >>

My assertion stands, given the complete absence of evidence to the contrary.

>>The Feds are in charge of the immigration rate. Immigrants largely go to Sydney and Melbourne. There are obvious problems with this sort of growth in those cities<<

Immigrants do not however go to Sydney and Melbourne because they are forced there by the government, which was the point I made. And the one you avoided. And the "problems" of this influx only exist in your mind.

As far as the statistics are concerned, you obviously knee-jerked rather than bothered to check the data.

>>Yes NSW has the biggest transmigration exodus, but it also has the biggest immigrant influx. So there is a pretty strong net gain overall<<

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Products/07C4285C66219C10CA257A5A00120A94?opendocument

In 2010-11, NSW had a net influx of 50,186 from overseas sources, while Queensland had a net influx of 31,226. That is, a 0.7% population increase due to immigration for NSW, and a - guess what? - a 0.7% increase for Queensland.

So, add those numbers into the interstate migration statistics, and you will find that Queensland has been growing twice as fast as NSW.

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Products/3218.0~2011~Main+Features~Main+Features?OpenDocument#PARALINK0

Try doing some homework, Ludwig, before you get snarky. As I said, it's not a good look.

<< You're starting to sound desperate, Ludwig. >>

You wish Pericles!!

Now, WHO’S getting a tad “snarky”??

And who’s getting really quite loopy with his insistence that a mere pertinent mention of population on various threads amounts to hijacking those threads? For goodness sake, you need to give up that one. It really does sound a might daft!

And would you believe it, you have completely ignored the main point in my last post. I reiterate:

< Bob Carr has the right political philosophy, which this country DESPERATELY needs to adopt, and which really is amazingly different to that currently being exercised by his party!

THIS is the all-important point. And it’s one that you can’t argue with, can you Pericles. >

To which you responded:

<< ……………………………………………………………………………………. >>

Yes, that’s right. You said NOTHING….. thus proving my point that you can’t argue with it. Coz you woulda if you coulda!!

The rest of this discussion is really twice removed from the subject of this thread.

You are waffling off on side-issues which even after a cursory glance I can see that you have got fundamentally wrong. But that can wait. I’ll respond more fully later.

Hay Luddy, fair go mate.
"In fact, a lot of your presumably genuinely held criticisms are very funny indeed! I could say that everything you write is a joke, but I wouldn't be that rude! ( :>)"

Don't tell them old mate, do you want to spoil all my fun? & here I was thinking of you as a mate & one of the sharper knives in the draw.

As I said, It's not a good look.

>>And would you believe it, you have completely ignored the main point in my last post. I reiterate:

< Bob Carr has the right political philosophy, which this country DESPERATELY needs to adopt, and which really is amazingly different to that currently being exercised by his party!

THIS is the all-important point. And it’s one that you can’t argue with, can you Pericles. ><<

You are perfectly entitled to your opinion, Ludwig. But please don't try to pretend that it is anything more than that.

You only believe that Bob Carr "has the right political philosophy" because he appears to share your views on population control. You insist that this is one that "this country DESPERATELY needs to adopt", which is another opinion that I have heard from you ad nauseam, but one that you have never actually put forward a convincing argument for. Except in your own eyes, of course.

Burbling on about how Sydney is more overcrowded than, say, Outer Woop Woop, QLD, is not in itself particularly persuasive. We're talking about the world's seventh most livable city, you know. (That's not my opinion, by the way. I put it three places higher. But I do agree with the Economist's survey in that it appears well ahead of anywhere in Queensland. Including Outer Woop Woop).

This, by the way, belongs in the playroom:

>>Yes, that’s right. You said NOTHING….. thus proving my point that you can’t argue with it. Coz you woulda if you coulda!!<<

Sad, really.

Incidentally, the topic here was "Julia Gillard: superficiologist".

>>...a mere pertinent mention of population on various threads amounts to hijacking those threads?<<

Your hijacking is neither mere, nor pertinent, Ludwig. Your thinking that it is, is known in the trade as self-delusional.

Now, off to the beach with you.

Thanks Pericles for reminding people that the topic is about whether or not Julia Gillard is a superficiologist.

I bet anything in the world that Plato would have agreed with me in that she is a superficiologist. Great minds think alike!