What's what?

Why am I meant to be cool with that ?

Pretty harmless stuff though , don't you think ?

Seeing the PM has no problem with the morally questionable practice of placing his money in offshore tax havens in order to deny his eligible tax burden from contributing to the schools being discussed and that the leader of the opposition sees no problem with allowing labour hire companies that hire the schools cleaners to replace local workers with wage cutting visa holders , I'd say it's basically a non issue.

Wouldn't you ?

Blowin.... You've posted HEAPS of links lately on pollies from major parties doing stuff that doesn't pass the pub test. And you've been active here today. But you didn't post this story, did you....
If it was Labor's Dastyari, or the Libs M. Cash, you would've been all over it like a rash.

I didn't know about it.

And frankly I don't care.

I've never heard of some minor QLD One Nation politician. Why would I ?

I don't care about their stance on SSM as it's resolved anyway. I find a lot of what that say to be garbage and I've never made a secret of the fact.

....but you vote for them anyway?

I was a labor voter my whole life till I realised they no longer represent the Australian worker.

They are fixated on going down the neoliberal / big Australia path and I can't see that changing whether they are in government or opposition.

Currently it's a revolving door of Labor / LNP and they are both steering Australia down a path that I don't agree with.

I vote One Nation , not with any belief or hope or even desire that they will achieve power . In fact I hope they don't . But as a protest to alert the Labor party or maybe a party that has yet to form , that they will not get my vote until they alter their course.

It is a vote of no confidence in the current parties.

A donkey vote / invalid vote doesn't hold the same sway as political parties only notice the votes that other parties receive.

The One Nation policies of limiting immigration , no foreign ownership of Australian assets and reducing privatisation are policies that I do believe in.

Unfortunately they are too stupid to be trusted to implement them. Or anything really.

I believe my protest vote has led to a greater awareness amongst the major parties of the disenchantment that many voters feel and caused them to at least pause in their direction. This pause would never have happened without the protest vote within our country.

I'm not going to hold my breath for any real change within the majors though. I think an entirely new political movement must arise to wipe the slate clean of all the corruption and factional leverage that hamstrings our democracy.

"A donkey vote / invalid vote doesn't hold the same sway as political parties only notice the votes that other parties receive."
That's simply not true, blow boy. Picture the ramifications if eg 80% of the populace deliberately donkey voted. A deliberate mass protest vote... The "winners speech" on the night would be something to behold.

"I believe my protest vote has led to a greater awareness amongst the major parties of the disenchantment that many voters feel and caused them to at least pause in their direction"

Nope...... What it showed both parties, The coalition in particular, is a fake leaning to the extreme right. If you and many others choose to protest via voting for an extreme right party, you are helping in painting a false picture. It may in turn make major parties adopt Hanson policies, but the policies you don't support.

you should vote for who is your closest fit, and then protest on issues as you see fit. if there really isn't any parties that suit then I reckon donkey vote is the best way to go. voting for the party whos policies you dont agree may result in paying a price you never intended.

True enough , Sheepy.

It's a blunt instrument of change , but what else can I do ?

I believe it will lead to change and positive change , sooner or later.

A message is being sent . It's no secret that people that don't agree with the One Nation approach are voting for them as a protest.

Labor has had their day . It's over.

Happyass - There is no party to fit. Not in the slightest. it's fucking exasperating.

People harp on about diversity being a higher value. Where is the diversity of thought on the future of our nation ?

"The One Nation policies of limiting immigration , no foreign ownership of Australian assets and reducing privatisation are policies that I do believe in".

The great thing here is people can vote for whatever to whoever they like but if these are you main issues with the political system I would have thought you would be voting Greens. Sure they want a more sensible / compassionate approach to refugees but on immigration they would want it to be sustainable and they are big on restricting foreign ownership, protecting AU jobs and properly taxing multi nationals. Not sure of the logic of a life long Labor voting going to the extreme right as a protest vote. In the Senate ON mostly always votes in favour of the neo-liberal agenda of Trumble ... yeah, I also don't understand the logic.

Greens believe in open borders.

They don't represent me either.

I don't understand people voting for Labor repeatedly despite all evidence showing that Labor has no intention to represent their interests.

Sounds like an abused spouse letting their violent partner resume living in the same house after the latest bout of harm in the deluded belief that this time things will be different.

Look at Bill Shorten crawling to the Chinese spy , cap in hand , after the intelligence report urging politicians to avoid him as he's a foreign agent.

I'm not that naive of the reality of funding needs of a political party to provide opportunity to push their cause , but I do know that this system is broken and the major parties are genetically compromised by their years of operating within in.

It's time for an entirely fresh approach and voting for the same parties with your fingers crossed will never achieve this.

The protest vote is recognised for what it is - a cry for change . Hopefully a smart person somewhere will be inspired to provide the answer that many long for -

A voice that represents the people.

The problem with representing the "people" Blowin is that they are not a monolithic block. I find OneNation to be reprehensible as their key policies are about division. Their anti-Islam agenda is more likely to cause terrorism than prevent it and the suggestion that citizens be denied welfare benefits on the basis of their religion is well down the trend line towards facism. Their policy of preventing benefits awarded on the basis of indigenous status, given our history, is grossly offensive. Oh and their glorious red headed leader is a simpleton. It is hard to find anyone on the global political stage less cognitively capable than Trump, but Hanson makes him look like an intellectual giant.

Yes, you're not revealing anything new there, BB.

How else to address the issue of change though ?

The "people "may not be a block but those with aligned interests are :

https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/global-study-shows-many-around-wo...

Sorry that it's a global survey and not domestic. There is an equivalent for Australia but I can't find it right now.

You dont think that reducing immigration levels , preventing guest workers from usurping Australians of opportunity or halting privatisation and sale of assets to foreigners would be popular ?

I think you are falling into the same trap as many of the Trump voters. "Things are so bad that any change is worth the risk". The problem being that it isn't worth the risk if you elect or empower ignorant, bigoted fools whose main agenda is likely to result in greater social discord and disadvantage. The popular position is not always the wise one, which is why we don't have government by referendum. In a true democracy you elect politicians on the basis of their ability to make wise but difficult decisions even when they are not popular.

Yeah , sure.

Why chance it with a risky protest vote when you could bank on the continued degradation from the mobs that bought us - Unaffordable housing , dropping standards of living , congested cities , rampant sanctioned tax evasion , the trickle down effect ( haha !) , sell off of irreplaceable national infrastructure and real estate , barely disguised corruption , wasted gains from a One in a century mining boom and terrorism threatening our streets due to unjustified warfare.

Who'd be stupid enough to risk all those certainties in case the roughie doesn't work out ?

Time to reassess your logic if you believe that continuing with the incumbent duopoly is doing anything positive for our nation.

"Keep the bastards honest."

When the Dems were around they took all the protest votes and now One Nation is filling a similar sort of a role. Not in terms of politics, of course, but how people might use them to send a message to the major parties. It's a far riskier move with ON but the protest vote as a form of accountability has its place. The problem is a large protest vote can weaken the party you prefer handing power to the other side, and if that happens the whole thing backfires.

I sorta kinda maybe agree with Blowin regarding sending a message to the major parties, because there's been a profound shift in sentiment and the major parties, Labor in particular, have to shake themselves down and get a clear read on the new political landscape.

That said, I disagree with how Labor found itself in this predicament.

The belief that the protest vote isn't recognised as such is garbage. It's a widely referenced social fact.

Again here : http://www.smh.com.au/comment/its-time-we-thought-a-bit-harder-about-why...

And how did you or anyone else including the political parties quantify the profound shift in sentiment ?

The protest votes.

Who are you arguing with? Me or BB..?

The way I see it politics here and elsewhere has moved too far to the right with neo-liberalism.

In AU when Howard took the country to the right over his decade long reign Labor also moved to the right in an attempt to stay relevant to the electorate and not their core values. This movement continued with Rudd/Gillard/Rudd/Abbott/Turnbull, although given the nature of political debate in recent times and the Senate blocking the excesses of the Abbott/Turnbull governments, this shift has slowed to a crawl.

With neo-liberalism now almost universally discredited and the emergence of the "protest vote" (Hanson) we are now seeing the LNP belatedly addressing issues like multi-national tax avoidance and a recognition welfare, health and education cannot be cut like neo-liberalism would dictate. Equally, we are seeing Labor looking into policies on negative gearing, foreign ownership, tax avoidance that just a year or two ago would have been labelled by the right as "class warfare".

The protest vote is influencing both major parties but the Hanson vote is most brutally felt on the right, its a symptom if you like of the much large ideological cracks that are emerging on the right. If neo-liberalism doesn't work what does? what do they now stand for? how do they define themselves? The world before neo-liberalism, before Reagan, Thatcher and Howard was a different beast, a place where most economic policies here and in western democracies around the world enjoyed a very high degree of bi-partisanship ...... the sensible centre both left of and right of. And isn't that what the electorate wants. I do.

So I foresee Labor edging slowly back towards the left of (the historical) centre but the right is in for a torrid time of it as evidenced but how the Nationals are running feral, how conservative members of the Liberal Party would prefer to be in opposition than in government. The right is a mess, seriously does anyone thing otherwise, all Shorten needs to do is take inspiration from Sanders and Corbyn and he will be our next PM and possibly for a ling-time.

It feels like I'm arguing with everyone but you.

Just making a point based off your comment.

OK, right...are you winning?

I'd like to think that everyone sitting with clenched jaw and beads of fury driven sweat matting the hair on their forehead is the big winner in a political discussion.

We all win !

Actually, if I can sway anyone from the parroted false statement that One Nation voters are uniformly uneducated bogans hellbent on dividing the country then I do win.

Healthy debate is always good. I find it very worrying that the protest vote would go so far to the right. Aren't we right wing enough already? Every issue Blowin describes, other than immigration, is much more likely to be addressed by a left wing party. So is immigration really the issue driving people towards One Nation? My impression is that most One Nation supporters live in electorates with a low percentage of recent immigrants, so why all the bitching? They can't steal your job or offend your fashion sense from a thousand kilometres away.

You think that attempting to halt the reduction of living standards is a right wing issue ?

Why would someone that prides themselves on being intelligent, such as yourself BB , fall for the line that a desire to reduce immigration is a right wing prerogative?

At least forty percent of the country was born overseas and that is not the point of contention. The point of contention is that continued immigration perpetuates the lowering of wages of everyone , everywhere.

Unless you believe that wages in regional areas aren't dictated by wages in the cities ?

Or the fact that house prices are at a multiple of their value every where in the country due to unsustainably high immigration. Even areas without high localised overseas immigration see radical price hikes due to an influx of people that have been priced out of their areas due to high immigration.

And you think that the impact of visa workers is isolated from the areas of lower immigration ?

Take a peak at the link I provided previously in the thread regarding the situation in Tamworth as a single example .

There is no left wing party that addresses these issues.

Edit : Was Drifting towards Ad Hominem.

Heaven forbid !

Of course you could be wrong.

https://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/migration-population/report

Maybe consider the pathway to residency that most immigrants follow involves either visa guest worker or student visa . Both of which are notorious for subverting the hard won working conditions that Australians enjoyed previously.

And there could be the unthinkable possibility that the link you provided reveals nothing more than a government with vested interests in perpetuating the idea that an ever expanding population is nothing but a good thing for the nation.

Blowin there are more and more alternatives arising, you just have to look at the policies:

https://www.conservatives.org.au/our_policies

Look at immigration, visas and balancing budgets here for example.

And for ON when you look through their manufacturing policy you will see they actually want to nurture and grow it here. That's gotta beat the wholesale de-industrialisation we are seeing now (how many refineries do we have now, how many days fuel supply is in-country at any time? Is this a reason to be concerned?)

blowin. question for you. if you had to join a political party with the goal of influencing it to achieve the changes you wished to see, which party would it be?

There is none that even remotely represents me . They'd all be basically unrecognisable by the time I was finished.

The more likely possibility Blowin is that there is no evidence to support your view. There is quite a bit of debate around the issue but the consensus is that the influence of immigration on per capita income is small.

Quite a bit of debate, yes, but consensus, no.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-19/high-immigration-masks-australian-...

Consensus ?!

You do make me laugh sometimes , BB.

The fact that the single greatest issue for Australia's future is virtually undiscussed is revealing in itself.

Every single aspect of our lives is tied to this issue : Economically , environmentally , standard of living and quality of life.

House prices , time spent in traffic , available medical care , burden on water supplies - You name it and it hinges on population size.

Yet our headlines concern power prices and stadiums.

Why is this ?

Because both sides of politics and all of big business needs population growth that is both exponential and perpetual. Including the media. It's the great ponzi scheme that dare not be named despite us all being unwitting participants .

The dearth of research into the costs of high immigration is the result of that old chestnut : Never commission an inquiry unless you know the outcome will be favourable to your cause.

So we have virtually zero research , an unspoken media and political blackout on the topic but this is still not enough to silence the critics.

Then the powers that be turned to that old chestnut - Make it a moral sin to even consider the topic.

I find it a true sign of intelligence to see which side of this topic one ascribes to - Can immigration and population size be debated objectively or does the person decry the idea as racist / xenophobic ?

The second option is of course completely irrational.

An anology would be the time that i went to a friend's house and his mum cooked us dinner. A sumptuous spread that spanned 4 courses. Each mouthful more delicious than the last . Finally I was stuffed solid , could not eat another bite. Then his mother emerged from the kitchen with another course that was at least as large as the main. As delicious as the food was I couldn't possibly eat it so I explained the situation to his mum , thanked her for a delightful meal and apologised that I wouldn't be able to eat any more.

She looked at me quizzicality for a second , then burst into tears , sobbed that I didn't like her cooking and bolted into the kitchen . I didn't see her again before I left the next morning.

The same irrational conflation between quality and quantity is used to justify a stance by the vested interests and used to silence the debate that we must have. My mate's mum irrationally took the fact that I couldn't eat anymore to indicate that I didn't like her food. The proponents of high immigration irrationally declare the fact that I wish to restrain the growth of Australia to indicate that I'm racist.

Thanks to everyone that's posted on the topic . The more openly and objectively the issue is discussed the harder it will be for those vested interests to return its silencing classification as an immoral taboo.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant !

Really enjoyed the post by Guysmiley at 2:30 Monday.

And thanks for the link Coaster.

PS Here's something to think about - In 1997 modelling by the government predicted a population for Australia in 2040 of 24 million people.

The plan for our nation was based on this assumption including all infrastructural works. Clearly they were wrong but this fact has never been addressed.

PPS China introduced the one child policy to contain their population growth as much as possible . Were they racist for not wanting more Chinese ?

Hmm, slightly paranoid there Blowin. No shortage of research on immigration. Maybe you should read it sometime.

Oh and I meant to ask. Did you go and see Milo?

If you still think I'm a fan of the right wing then it's confirmation that your blindness is selective.

Maybe that's being too generous ?

There may be some research, but there's SFA being said by the major parties. Over population affects everything and yet raising the issue is more offensive than bestiality.

You not concerned by high levels of immigration? Even just to open the debate, enlarge the discourse, and have the leaders tell us why we need it. If the only reason is to prop up a lagging economy then those who take a humanitarian stance are being played for suckers. If it's something else then I'd sincerely like to hear it. I don't know enough about it, and like I said, the major parties are silent.

Keep immigration and refugess two seperate matters - refugee count is a fraction of it anyway - and open the discussion.

Show me all those headline debates on the single greatest issue concerning Australia and I'll concede.

Well said , Stu.

I agree there should be greater debate. More later

So, first of all, I am an immigrant. I came to Australia when I was 8 years old. My father was transferred here and the company paid for the whole family to move here. Then, as now, there are genuine skills shortages. My default position then is that I support any reasonable immigration policy, since I would be a hypocrite to oppose it. The current policy may not be perfect but is reasonable, therefore I support it. There would need to be much stronger evidence than currently exists, that the policy is harmful before I would oppose it. In terms of population growth, Australia currently has reasonable natural growth without immigration, but this would almost certainly decline over a couple of decades if immigration was stopped. Zero or negative population growth may sound desirable but its consequences, as seen in Japan, are profoundly disruptive. In the larger picture, as technology and environmental understanding increases, Australia can support a significantly larger population that it has currently. Globally population will probably stabilise by the end of the century. I suppose a lot of this is about how you see Australia. For me Australia is the greatest multi-cultural nation on Earth and I would like to think we have on.y just got started!

An extra 2000 people per week for the next 20 years crammed into Sydney.

That's good news for house prices and that's all that matters in life .....right ?

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/supply-supply-supply-record-housing-approvals-...

All that blindboy has said is very 'reasonable' except the current numbers. Its a fucking free for all, in the never ending desire for prolonged economic growth.

While japan has its population problems, I see more and more it is used as an example for the argument against this mythical 3% economic growth figure, as they have experienced very little, if any growth, through the years of the last few decades.

Japan is now used as an example of a good 'steady state economy', as without experiencing growth, their economy and society has not fallen apart. One could argue their society is as cohesive as ever. I believe this is due to maintaining and celebrating their traditional culture. Much the same as indonesia has done. While indonesia is a totally different economic story - with crazy growth and inflation being their nemesis - they are doing alright too, despite steriodal growing inequality. No doubt due to maintaining a feeling of 'belonging' and oneness through maintaining culture.

Which brings us to australia and other western nations seeing problems, as their culture is diluted, and even feeling threatened, through over the top migration. I don't personally feel it, or worry about it, but to dismiss it as a none issue is to disregard a large part of population's opinions as not important in our supposed democracy that counts everyone. Advocates just seem oblivious to new 'evidence' whilst spruiking the benefits of what seems to be very dated 'evidence'.

I agree, we are a shining example of multiculturalism. But the constant dismissal of people's concerns doesn't seem to be serving anyone or anything. In fact, it is undermining the whole project.

I'm not anti migration, and I certainly am not islamaphobic. However, I believe advoctes shutting down any conversations about migration and how it might take place have shot themselves in the foot. I think it is perfectly reasonable to discuss if australia should accept the wearing of burqas in public places. Its also perfectly reasonable to discuss if australia should go halal with its food. However these debates were not allowed to happen as everyone with the independance of thought to question such things was shut down as racist and islamaphobic.

Now look where we are. That technique didn't go so well.

Apropos BB's reply: Not sure that our "skills shortage" amounts to nigh on 200,000 people per year every year.

And, elsewhere, this fake news thing has just become beyond embarrassing for the never trumpers.

Be it desperation, blatent disregard for truth, or plain incompetence. These supposed 'journalists' who are supposed to be the conveyors of information, objectivity and truth have literally lost the plot. And in doing so are losing the 'battle' big time.

Trust is a slippery concept. It has been wittled away over decades of over the top partisanship from both sides. The 'left' media (whatever that now means) are just digging their holes deeper.

Their opinions are pretty much irrelevant, especially following on from the weistein developments, which have pretty much proven third wave feminists to be full of shit. Not just full of shit, but overflowing with shit, and spilling it everywhere, soiling everything that matters.

https://theintercept.com/2017/12/09/the-u-s-media-yesterday-suffered-its...

"especially following on from the weistein developments, which have pretty much proven third wave feminists to be full of shit."

Go on...

There actually is a skills shortage Stu.

Turns out that Australia is facing a massive shortfall in politicians that are able to turn down a handfull of cash no matter how compromising the source may be to the interests of the nation.

That's pretty much the only skills shortage I'm aware of.

It's hard to get revved up right now cause I'm so surf giddy. Let's see if I can fake frustration till genuine outrage hits me.

What other issues do we have to cover ?

PS I appreciate your perspective and personal history BB , but as Sypkan said - you don't think that 200,000 people a year is laying it on a bit thick ?

"In 2002, a CSIRO population study commissioned by the former Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, outlined six potential dilemmas associated with immigration-driven population growth. These included: the absolute numbers of aged continuing to rise despite high immigration off-setting ageing and declining birth-rates in a proportional sense; a worsening of Australia's trade balance due to more imports and higher consumption of domestic production; increased greenhouse gas emissions; overuse of agricultural soils; marine fisheries and domestic supplies of oil and gas; and a decline in urban air quality, river quality and biodiversity.[21]"

Well, I don't neccasarily mean their theories are full of shit, though many other feminists would argue they are.

I mean they were all hyperventilating about trump and his "grab em by the pussy" remark, and the 16 sexual abuse accusers against him (who incidently seem to have vanished into thin air).

Meanwhile they were all turning a blind eye to weinstein and his antics because he was a 'feminist' haha hahahahaha....sorry...Same with bill clinton, who literally grabbed em by the pussy. And his wife, hilary, who destroyed his accusers in the media. The whole democrat party machine was willing to overlook his (and her) indicretions, because bill is also a 'feminist'.

Then the media guys, matt lauer, with his rape button under the desk, another 'feminist'. And the PBS guy, another 'feminist', forget his name, but personally I expect more from a PBS guy, not so much those commercial frauds.

And, meryl streep, calls weinstein "god", and defends roman polanski for his peadophilic tendencies. Lena durham, the poster girl young hip modern feminist, questioning accusers of her mate, which is the cardinal sin of feninism...unless its your mate.

The whole hollywood liberal left machine has been proven to be full of shit. Spruiking one set of rules for the plebs whilst indulging, over looking, and covering up what the public knew goes on behind closed doors.

The irony is they think the great unwashed are dumb. Ignorant, and uneducated. Well, the public knew the machine was full of shit. Taking all the dogma with a pinch of salt, the public saw through this facade well before the 'revelations'.

Combine the weinstein effect with the liberal left journalist 'feminists' and you have a system with no credibility whatsoever. An industrial news and media entertainment complex that preaches morals to the plebs whilst living by their own rules.

I think its great, the less influence hollywood has the better. Whatever your politics. It 's just a little more than disappinting that the media preachers one has followed and respected for some time are just as bad as any right wing nut job republican.

The hollywood developments are great though. Couldn't be happier

https://m.

Stu, Australia is able to select those entering but that selection and the limits we impose are maintained by the threat of indefinite offshore detention. How long that will continue to work, I don't know. Until then our best option is to develop a strong diverse multi-cultural nation, so 200,000 sounds about right to me.

.

Disappeared onto the front page of the New York Times?
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/12/11/us/politics/trump-accused-sexual-m...

BB It's strange that when it comes to climate change you're all about employing the precautionary principal , yet when I mention the deleterious effects of unsustainable human overpopulation on Australia's delicate ecosystem then you're all good.

She'll be right , mate !

Because someone should probably invent something that ameliorates all the negative impacts . Or something.

You've got your fingers crossed , so there's that at least.