The answers are to be found in a directions paper put out by the party in April ("Towards a Productive and Sustainable Population Growth Path for Australia"). The policy is a long way from being traditionalist, but I thought there were some real positives in it as well. It may even make the Liberal Party worth voting for this election.
Same old, same old
I'll start with the negatives, so I can finish on a more cheerful note. The Liberal Party continues to believe (along with the right-liberal journalists at The Australian newspaper) that the purpose of immigration is to serve the economy:
The Coalition believes that addressing the skills needs of businesses to sustainably grow our economy is the primary reason for a migration programme. Consequently, economic considerations must be paramount in how our programme is framed and composed. (p.4)
The primary purpose of a nation’s migration programme is economic, namely to supplement natural increase to create critical market mass in the domestic economy and service the skills needs of a growing economy. (p.8)
So preserving distinct national traditions counts for nothing, it's all about the economy. This demonstrates just how far distant the Liberal Party is from being anything like a traditionalist party.
Furthermore, once you accept the premise that the aim of a migration programme is "to create critical mass in the domestic economy" then you are likely to remain committed to ongoing population growth via migration.
And the belief that a primary aim of immigration is to "service the skills needs of a growing economy" means that the Liberals are also committed to making it easier for businesses to bring in overseas workers via the 457 visa system:
liberalisation of arrangements for temporary business visas (457s) subject to clear standards, to make them more accessible to business, especially small businesses, and business in regional areas, with proven skills shortage needs (p.8)
It's worth noting too that it was the Liberal Party under John Howard which began the massive rise in immigration which Kevin Rudd then further accelerated (see figure 3 on page 4: Howard governed from 1996 to 2007. He held immigration steady until 2000 but then increased it every year till his defeat.)
So what are the more promising parts of the Liberal policy? Part of it is that the Liberals are now taking seriously the idea that there are some legitimate restraints on immigration numbers, such as the need to provide adequate infrastructure and to maintain environmental sustainability.
There is even a very clear statement in the policy paper that until infrastructure and sustainability can be factored into an immigration policy, that numbers should be kept below 180,000 per annum:
Until such time as a growth band can be established for future population growth that takes into account future infrastructure, services and environmental demands, the Coalition does not endorse the growth path projected in the third intergenerational report for a population of 36 million by 2050 that requires an average rate of net overseas migration of 180,000 per annum. (p.7)
180,000 is still an historically high level, but it's a lot lower than the current 300,000 average and at least it's a firmer commitment than anything made by the Labor Party.
And there's something else to be welcomed in the Liberal Party policy paper. The paper acknowledges that immigration does not necessarily raise real GDP per capita. This is a significant admission given that the Liberals place so much emphasis on the economic basis for migration.
The following quote is arguably the most important in the whole paper:
The economic focus of the Coalition’s approach to population policy is on productivity. In pursuing a commitment to improving productivity, we cannot allow population growth to become a surrogate.
The intergenerational reports conducted by Treasury have consistently highlighted the 3Ps when it comes to economic growth, namely productivity, participation and population.
In their most recent IGR, Treasury concluded that growth in productivity is the primary determinant of growth in real GDP per person ...
Our wealth as a nation is far more complex than simply taking more people in. It is possible to grow our economy without rates of population growth that diminish liveability and sustainability. (p.4, my emphasis)
And some important data is provided to back up this point. There is an attachment (A, p.9) which lists the productivity growth and population growth of the OECD countries. It is clear from this attachment that you can have productivity growth without major population growth.
Australia has one of the highest rates of population growth of the countries listed (15%) but one of the lowest rates of productivity growth per labour unit (1.1%). Compare this to the Slovak Republic which had a population growth of only 0.3% but a productivity growth of 5.0%.
So immigration cannot be the primary focus of economic development. Perhaps it is recognising this that allows the writers of the policy paper to make the following criticisms of recent immigration trends:
Australians are already feeling growing pains from current population pressures. Congestion in our cities, limitations on our energy supply, threats to food security, erosion of service standards in our hospitals and marginalisation of water resources are all evidence of the challenges created by population growth.
In October last year the Prime Minister dismissed these challenges and recklessly committed Australia to his idea of a Big Australia and later endorsed the 36 million population projections contained in the third intergenerational report.
The majority of Australians are uncomfortable with Kevin Rudd’s notion of a Big Australia of 36 million people as evidenced by recent surveys conducted by the Lowy Institute (69% opposed), Morgan poll (90% opposed), Ninemsn poll (82% opposed) and ANU (69% opposed).
As proposed in this policy directions statement, the Coalition does not endorse Kevin Rudd’s vision for a Big Australia of 36 million people by 2050. (p.1)
Is it enough?
So it's a mixed report. The Libs are blind to the need to maintain their own distinct national tradition. What matters for them is the economy. But they have recognised that there's more to economic development than immigration and that immigration numbers need to be linked to infrastructure and sustainability. They have committed themselves to numbers of fewer than 180,000 per annum and a population level of less than 36,000,000 by 2050.
These are still very high figures. However, it's better than any commitments made by Labor and could therefore be a positive reason for giving preferences to the Liberals at the election.
There is no cause for optimism in any of this. 180,000 a year, 80% of which is non-European, is not an immigration program - it's a government-sanctioned invasion by the developing world.ReplyDelete
Because Asian migrants overwhelmingly vote Labor I doubt the coalition will ever regain power. Howard was too clever by half by starting the massive buildup that ultimately saw a sitting prime minister booted out of his own seat by a tsunami of Chinese, Korean and Indian recent-migrant voters. Why? Because he was wrongly perceived by them as being anti-immigration. The opposite was in fact true.
The colonization of Australia is bankrolled by media magnates, education industrialists, bankers and property speculators who want to fatten their already bulging wallets at our expense. Expanding the population does not raise productivity nor does it increase GDP per capita.
So I'm afraid it's Goodbye forever to the Australia we once knew and loved. We shall remember you fondly in the new multicultural, non-European, politically-correct and feminized Australia.
We need to keep building support for an alternative politics. Even if we can't have things as they were, we don't know what we can salvage. You yourself sound like an educated, realistically minded person. We need you and others like you to hold steady and to make an ongoing contribution to a counterpolitics.
Anonymous is correct that the Libs are undermining their own electoral prospects by supporting mass immigration.ReplyDelete
I wrote a post on this back in 2007. It seems that once an electorate has more than 20% of voters born in non English speaking countries it turns Labor.
This was true even of Bennelong, John Howard's former seat in Sydney. It was once a safe Liberal seat, but then was populated with wealthy Chinese and Koreans.
Howard did a lot for the Chinese and Koreans, and many of these East Asian migrants are drawn from the commercial classes which are usually solidly Liberal.
But they still voted against the serving PM just as the 20% rule predicted they would. Howard lost his own seat, a rare occurrence for a PM in Australian politics.
"...once an electorate has more than 20% of voters born in non English speaking countries it turns Labor".ReplyDelete
This is why Rudd/Gillard Labor has ratcheted up immigration levels to around 300,000 p.a. They know full well that, if they can obfuscate the issue with phoney "debates" about "population" that never actually amount to anything (except higher immigration) they can get the public to begrudgingly accept these record-high levels. In this way Labor will be able to import another million ALP voters over the course of a single term in office.
Ten years hence, I can confidently predict that the Coalition will be denounced as an "irrelevant", aging and senile "white-man's party" which is a "throwback" to the old "racist Anglo-Saxon Australia" with no-place in today's affirmative action, "vibrant" and "diverse" multicultural Australia.
John Howard was probably the last Australian PM who had an opportunity to future-proof his party. And, I'm sorry to have to tell you this this Jesse_7 - because I know you have a soft spot for the Libs - Howard sold out our country to big business. Now the Australia we all grew up in is about to vanish into the ether forever.
Our politicians all crowed that mass-immigration meant that, unlike other OECD countries, we escaped going into recession during the GFC. Personally, I'd rather endure a single quarter of negative GDP growth then sell-out the birthright of my children; destroy our national identity forged over many generations and world wars; and be a traitor to my own people.
As Mr Richardson keenly observes, these steps on the part of the Liberal Party are incomplete and timid.ReplyDelete
However, some praise is warranted in appearing to defy the avarice of the plutocrats and the Murdoch Press, as well as the fanatical anti-white race hatred of inner-city Labor socialists.
I never entertained any belief that the Liberals would defeat Gillard, as women especially are liable to submit to forgetting past injuries when promised future delights. A female Prime Minister, and one perceived as successful, is an idea that delights many vain, tawdry women who neglect to consult the welfare of their sons.
A Gillard Labor victory would strike at the natural prosperity of white, non-homosexual males who are punished by 'hate crime', 'equal opportunity' restraints, and begin the eclipse of such a society that LBJ ignited in America in 1965.
To disentangle the twisted tendrils of the final paragraph in my comment, I intended to convey that the regime of oppression and robbery against white, non-homosexual males in America, now consummated by their President, was founded in an embryonic form in1965 by Lyndon Johnson.ReplyDelete
I do agree with you Anonymous. I just know that 180,000 is better than 300,000 and down is better than up. Obviously we want it to go lower.ReplyDelete
Part of the Western psyche is to push for development and growth. Good standards and excellence. Whether this is innate intelligence, or cultural expectations, I think is slightly by and by and I think its most likely both. We are a relentless and aggressive civilisation (although now we're going into a bit of a soft period) and we've thrown up many new developments into the world. Many of them good, eg science, some of them destructive, eg communism. The point is if you just tell people we should stop, or sit still, it doesn't jell with them. That doesn't seem like the Western way.
What the left are arguing now is what they perceive to be the newest advance, "post racial politics". It is arguably one of their most revolutionary, nonetheless they hold onto it as an advance.
To achieve traction on this debate I think you have to work within the psyche of wanting advancement and at the same time say no. In that setting arguments that immigration doesn't actually advance the economy, immigration doesn't actually lead to a better or more productive society, are crucial.
You add to that the idea that you can open the door to mass immigration but you don't actually achieve the ethnic multicultural post racial politics. As you know we get racial blocks and political special pleading. This is because as has been stated many times our racial identities (ours and theirs) are part of us and we don't want to give them up.
In the previous thread stats were listed showing how few immigrants join the army. This is the current reality. Any attempt to argue that "we're all Australians" is not true. By saying "oh wait a few generations", its not worth it. Also for Australia to be Australia, and for immigrants to have something to assimilate to, it has to be dominantly Anglo Saxon.
180,000 is definitely lower than anything achieved under Rudd but the figure remains daunting by all standards. Australia currently has a population of roughly 22 million individuals, 180,000 is almost tantamount to France's current levels of legal migrants, whilst France population is closer to 63 million people. By all means, keep objecting to mass colonisation and irreversible transformation of your country in some dull, multi-culti dystopia. Of course, the Liberal alternative is far better than anything Labor will ever offer, however, I think it is far from satisfactory, considering immigration to Australia is, as was underlined in a previous comment, overwhelmingly non-white. Your first mistake was to scrap the White Australia Policy back in 1973. Once they have imported millions of aliens, Australia will not be Australia anymore, your cities will be crowded, accommodation will be expensive to the extent of being almost unaffordable (house prices are skyrocketing and are rising faster than in most Western countries), a severe drain on water resources and depletion of other natural resources will make life harder, entire swathes of the country will go Labor and the multi-culti elite will have won.ReplyDelete
I will tell you this : the situation is much the same in every self-denying Western country. Few have truly conservative political parties committed to keeping Western countries Western. Retaining our culture includes retaining the people who made it in the first place. However, some places have been largely spared the bane of foreign colonisation. For instance, entire swathes of Queensland are almost free of non-Western interference. In France, the centre of the country is sparsely populated and unheeded by migrants. In Britain, the southernmost part of the country is still overwhelmingly British, and Scotland harbours but a handful of immigrants. Internal migration and secession might be the key, however unsatisfactory the 'solution' might be, if all conservative-minded, patriotic people flocked to these parts, perhaps we could resist the surging tide in a more efficient fashion. I concede that it is no easy thing to leave one's region or let one's country die at the hands of barbarian hordes but what is left to us? What do we want for our children and relatives? The feminists may favour mass imports of aliens and feminisation but the latter can be only a matter of a few years before the ways of the Third World, including oppression of women, arise again. The feminists will lose the plot. So will the socialists, because once they are deprived of the productive segments of society, their welfare folly will crumble from its shaky plinth, they will have millions of dependents on their hands and no-one to subsidise them. We have a moral duty to survive and carry with us fragments of our civilisation to resurrect it in due time. We already stand at a crucial juncture when we must peruse the big picture and act in consequence. Our foes will be numerous: big government, big business, the left, multi-culti elite and establishment, the media committed to erasing gender or ethnic differences, and all the useful idiots the whole systen may come up with.
I'm the pain in the arse anonymous, just so no one gets confused with the excellent posts of the previous anon.
I think your missing the point that the other anonymous is trying to get at...
That the Liberals are lying. This is just a paper...it's not their official policy until they sign it in blood :) so to speak. They are jerking their 'base' around with these papers but not really doing anything. This willingness to 'debate' is just a way to waste time----to pat you guys on the butt so to speak to make you guys THINK you have a say. (which you don't you just haven't realized it yet)
Hey in California we've been debating since 1993 (actually 1988 86? from the Reagan Amnesty) and now the only reason the Arizona law is in place is because all the californians in 1996 moved to Arizona (I lost like 5% of my classmates in 97/96) and they saw what happened to CA and are trying to hold on to the last part of the West. Do you realize that Scottsdale is like the last white city in the West? Crazy thought!!!
The fact that Abbott didn't become a member of Pauline Hanson's party back in 99 just tells you what side he's really on. Your either balls in or balls out.
I basically think that there are elements within the Liberal party that want immigration to grow but I think they're the minority. The majority want the economy to grow, the majority would also cut immigrant numbers if they could or if they can. I don't think the Liberals are the masters pulling the strings but the party trying to do their best to survive, maintain traditions and appeal to the electorate. If Tony Abbott could electorally he would cut migrant numbers with a smile from ear to ear.
I know that may seem at odds with Howard's, especially, latter history of increases but Howard was also on very tight electoral margins. I don't think Howard's decision was right but he did it because he thought that would be a way to support economic growth, the essential core of his political success, and perhaps cut the edge off the white man racist tag that had been thrown against him from day one. For people who aren't that familiar with Australian recent electoral history Howard was absolutely hated by the left because he took them on so forcefully on many political and cultural issues.
Australian politics is still in the Howard glow. Both Gillard and Rudd have made conservative noises before elections thanks to Howard. The electorate has the courage to raise this immigration debate thanks to Howard. Abbott, a man who was considered far too conservative by the commetariat and many in the public is the leader of the Liberals now because Howard made it ok to be a conservative. The recent political history prior to Howard was unashamedly pro multiculturalism. It was Howard who made a big dent in that concept. At the same time he unfortunately undid a lot of the good work by increasing migrant numbers towards the end of his term.
On the point about Hanson Abbott didn't jail her but there was some screw up with her electoral enrollment. Any easy allegations on that issue aren’t accurate. If you look up the Wiki page you'll see members of the Liberal party defended her and her conviction was eventually overturned. Ultimately the One Nation party collapsed because of the uselessness of their internal processes which turned a lot of their members and candidates away in droves. Why else? Because Howard was the leader and he was conservative enough for many of the One Nation voters. One Nation started off at the tail end of a long and ultimately unpopular Labor government.
Abbott also in my opinion had every right to defend his parties positions against One Nation and ensure that the One Nation votes didn't bleed away Liberal support to ensure a Labor government. That nearly happened in 1998 when One nation votes nearly put the Labor party in power.
I said earlier that our politics is in the Howard glow. It's also in the One Nation glow and that’s also why its more acceptable to talk about immigration today. When I voted I preferenced One Nation 2 after the Liberals.
This is a quote from Thomas DiLorenzo's articles ... As explained by Murray Rothbard in “America’s Two Just Wars: 1775 and 1861″ (in John Denson, ed., The Costs of War, Transaction Publishers, 1997, p. 128):ReplyDelete
The North, in particular the North’s driving force, the “Yankees” had been swept by a new form of Protestantism. This was a fanatical and emotional neo-Puritanism driven by a fervent “postmillennialism” …
To the Yankees, their “kingdom” was to be a “perfect society” cleansed of sin …
The Northern war against slavery partook of fanatical millennialist fervor, of a cheerful willingness to uproot institutions, to commit mayhem and mass murder, to plunder and loot and destroy, all in the name of high moral principle and the birth of a perfect world …
DiLorenzo points out that Puritan publicists created the mythic Abe Lincoln out of thin air, and those who defied the duty to deify Lincoln did so at their peril–quite reminiscent of what happens to people who contravene the current standards of political correctness.
In my view, this proclivity stems ultimately from Western individualism as an ethnic trait: In individualist societies where relatedness beyond the immediate family is not important, ideas with great emotional appeal have a group-binding function, resulting in cohesive, emotionally motivated ingroups willing to mete out punishment to outgroups defined not on the basis of kinship but on the basis of their beliefs.
In large part the problem confronting Whites stems from our psychology of moralistic self-punishment exemplified at the extreme by the Puritans and their intellectual descendants, but also apparent in a great many other Whites … These people will eagerly use government against the politically incorrect, morally reprobate ne’er-do-wells in their midst.
I think anyone around in Australia during the Hanson period would have said that she was gutsy but a dill. She did push all politics to the right though and that was awesome.ReplyDelete
I edited your comment partly because of length (it was as long as the post) and partly because it was not entirely on topic.
Honestly guys I'm frustrated as you are. I just think there's more scope for advancement under the Liberals. If I didn't think that I wouldn't support them. I wouldn't vote for Turnbull.ReplyDelete
A little while ago I said I supported Cameron over Brown. Cameron is already cutting defence spending and I'm banging my head against a wall.
On the point in Mark's column about the Liberal's supporting the economy. This is true. There is also the possibility that because Labor is less economically focused they may be more willing to consider cultural arguments against immigration. Gillard has tried to use that in her sustainability argument along the lines that, "Australia is more than an economy, we're a society and quality of life matters etc".ReplyDelete
This is Labor of the 40's and 50's etc which was the working man's (white) party and was essentially focused on improving their standard of living. I don't think that this is Labor today. They're way to compromised by multiculturism and the new left ideals in my opinion.
Just to add in to the mix, Abbott has taken a swipe at using higher education for immigration purposes:ReplyDelete
"What I don't want us to be doing is selling immigration outcomes in the guise of selling education"
He also wants more of the population growth to be through higher fertility rates:
"I would like to see our birth rate improve because even now, despite the uptick in the birth rate over the last few years, it's still significantly below replacement level"
"What I don't want us to be doing is selling immigration outcomes in the guise of selling education". - T. Abbott.ReplyDelete
Well if that's the case Mr Abbott, why the bloody hell did your party positively encourage this rort for more than a decade?
Yes, Abbot only has his own party to blame for the student mess. In 2001 or thereabouts the Libs removed the requirement for overseas students wishing to immigrate to return home before applying. They also put a lot of semi-skilled jobs onto the occupations in demand list like cooking, hairdressing, pastry chefs etc that guaranteed residency for anyone from a third world country that had the wherewithal to buy a pair of scissors or a wooden spoon.
When later questioned about this, a senior Liberal simply said that "it seemed like a good idea at the time".
All I can say in response to such stupid and myopic policy is that a pack of dills like that don't deserve my vote. Not then and not now. As for Labor, don't even get me started...
I just want to state it again. I think the Liberals are boxed in by the current ideological currents. Partly they contribute to it but mostly they just have to do the best they can with it.ReplyDelete
R J Stove speaking of The Australian have you read Dick Smith's comments"?ReplyDelete
Here comes the ethnic vote bullshit.ReplyDelete
Two things to add....ReplyDelete
The point of my post that I was trying to edit and royally screwed up...was that White People (at least in the US) are very prone to moral arguments. If you say "we must take in the illegal immigrants to give them a better life" white people just crumble. I've seen this argument in Oz on the boat people.
So you either have to a) frame your counterarguments in moral terms and/or b) Make white people aware that they are so susceptible to these types of slimy manipulative guilt inducing arguments that they no longer fall for it anymore.
Now onto the Liberal Party Politics side.....
Well you know I don't trust Politicians :) Plenty of sayings on that!
I don't think Abbott would strike immigration with a smile on his face. I think Abbott is Catholic and has that 'moral' flaw as defined in the previous post. I hope I'm wrong though....just a feeling
But either way.....A big problem with the Liberals are that they have to stay in power to stay employed. So these people aren't going to 'rock the boat' because they will lose their jobs......and Their Major Donors.
If the liberal members really felt this way about immigration they should just come out and Do It. But they won't. Why? Because they would lose not the electorate, but the major donors to the party---and subsequently their income.
That's where publicly funded campaigns come in.
I think there is an electorate will...but I think there is no POlitical Will. See that's where me and Jesse disagree?
Further there may even be international condemnation if an Australian Liberal Party were to act in the manner we want them too. Couldn't u just see the NYTimes or many other evil papers go "Ozzies turn into Nazis!" See on an international level they would never allow you Ozzies to stop immigration because that would expose the entire racket on all the western countries...White people in Italy would be like "no more illegal aliens", The BNP would become legitimized, Vlaams Belang....The United States whites would revolt....
Yeah.....the libs don't have the COURAGE to rock the boat in that manner....can you blame them? Well yes actually u can because the men who signed the constitution lost everything they had for the future generations. Sad that the people in power now are not so selfless.
I have a question....do you guys have full transparency when it comes to major party donations? Is there someplace that the Libs and Labor have all their donors listed?ReplyDelete
It would be fascinating to follow the money trail
See...Dick Smith is a true Australian and he's smart enough to know Exactly who the Murdoch Media represents (I wouldn't say capitalists though....but u know me)
Dick Smith is a millionaire whose independent of the system so he can go out on a limb and go against these people. We need more Dick Smith's.
Good On Him!
I wonder if he's smart enough to know who controls Julia Gillard...I doubt it....He should hang with me :)
See that's why it's imperative that laws get passed that allow equal opportunity so that more David Forrests and Dick Smiths can become millionaires. These types of elites will protect their country. Not the other elites.ReplyDelete
In Hollywood a lot of actresses mumble under their breaths that there are only certain places to get 'in'....Australia, Toronto, and sometimes New York. Look carefully....all the new actresses who are unconventional are from those areas. Ellen Page- Canada, Cate Blanchett, Naomi--Australia....They never would get 'through' in Hollywood because it wouldnt' be allowed.
The same thing in Politics. Sarah Palin snuck through the system in the back door of Alaska. If she was in California she never would have been allowed.
Australia is still a back door....You still have a few non-something millionaires like Dick Smith and David Forrest....It is absolutely imperative that you guys keep it that way.
Like look at District 9 and the director...he got in through the back door of Vancouver with the help of Peter Jackson who is acting as his own 'back door'ReplyDelete
In Hollywood, neither of those men would have gotten Anywhere. Would not have been allowed.
That's why if you make a film whatever you do don't use anyone from HOllywood...go to Canada or Oz...Just the other day I met a British BBC guy who is in a lawsuit with some hollywood people and I was like Ha Ha Ha! He doesn't know!!!
Politics are the EXACT same way.....on a global scale and a local scale. Julia Gillard did not go through the backdoor so you know EXACTLY what she stands for. Abbott didn't get in through the back door so he probably is not of the character to rock the boat also.
"See...Dick Smith is a true Australian and he's smart enough to know Exactly who the Murdoch Media represents".ReplyDelete
Now if I can just get my Dick Smith DVD player to stop skipping ;).
"If the liberal members really felt this way about immigration they should just come out and Do It. But they won't. Why? Because they would lose not the electorate, but the major donors to the party---and subsequently their income."ReplyDelete
I don't know the ins and outs of the electoral system in Australian but we're nowhere near like America's huge private donation system.
On losing the electorate don't forgot that Hanson never polled more than 20% and that was in Queensland her home state.
Yeah but 20% is amazing...that's better than the BNP!ReplyDelete
What would happen if Hanson's party had been allowed to survive is that by 2010 she would have been polling 40%
Stop defending the Liberals Jesse :)ReplyDelete
They destroyed Hanson and by doing so destroyed the one chance to save Australia.
Control who to vote for, control who is able to speak, control which views are allowed to be heard---Control the Country! MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
U know I would make such a good bad guy if I wasn't such a pussy :)ReplyDelete
One more time...
"What would happen if Hanson's party had been allowed to survive is that by 2010 she would have been polling 40%".ReplyDelete
Another point in favour of immigration restrictionism from an Australian perspective is that Australia doesn't really have any significant out-migration.ReplyDelete
New Zealand's politicians are always saying we need more immigrants to make up for those leaving for Australia, suggesting that Australia's politicians are attached to growth for growth's sake.
No politician in a conventional party in Australia will have the courage, or even the drunken audacity, to propose limiting immigration to nations of similar hue as ours, or instituting racial quotas.ReplyDelete
All establishments under heaven, established universities, established unions, established press and 'anonymous' public servants, would cry them down as suggesting an Auschwitz-like persecution of defenceless people.
Unfortunately, in these times, once an excellent, long-standing 'conservative' policy, more founded on tradition than law, is revoked it can't be replaced before a cascade of disasters shake people awake.
Hanson never had the urbane charm to attract the middle-classes. When you're aiming to displace established opinion you must assemble both lower and middle class whites as supporters so the pressure becomes overwhelming.
Well either way she and her party were unfairly, and unjustly dismantled before the ball started rolling...so I guess we'll never know....ReplyDelete
How dare anyone try to achieve power through a non-mainstream, non-official, non-approved already established party! How dare they!
Jesse your right, I was wrong. Make that 60% of the vote for Pauline Hanson :) :) :)ReplyDelete
I'm reading news articles about Pauline Hanson....here's a snapshot of what your fellow Ozzies have to say about her :)
I love her, and I would vote for her any time, GO PAULINE YOU ARE THE BEST.
She is the Right's answer to Bob Brown... both extremists but hopefully she has the gusto to 'keep the bastards honest' since the Democrat's can't and the Greens are too busy tying themselves to trees and driving up our cost of living to care.
i would rather vote for someone like Pauline than the others ( liberial/Labour )who just say anything to buy your vote , either put up or shut up and hold your word that if your got some honor
C'mon Tony....ask her back!!!! PLEASE??!!
Woah, put her back in she ain't done yet!
Australia couldn't handle Pauline Hanson back in politics. She's the only one gutsy enough to say what she thinks without worrying about whether she's popular or not. Pauline for PM!
Love this woman and her views...go Pauline - you know whats best for Australia. If only everyone could see that she isn't being racist, she is trying to make it fair for everyone.
A lot of comments here seem to be very negative about an excellent development in politics. I have said for years that immigration policy dynamics would radically change as soon as marginal seats could be won or lost on the policy.ReplyDelete
This new dynamic it a far larger problem for Labor than for the Liberals
On the Labor side the big immigration backers are the multi-culti left and those in right labor who thinks it keeps the economy strong.
For the Liberal side their backers are the corporate big market growth believers and who are big contributors to party funds.
For many years it was just too hard to rock the boat internally and to address the issue as the feeling in both the parties was as long as the economy was good people would not make that much fuss, so the numbers started creeping up under Howard and rocketed up under Rudd.
Despite what some commentators on this site say these migrants don't help Labor all that much, something like 80% of all migrants go to Sydney or Melbourne and this is where the Labor heartland seats (typically low income white, low income migrant)and the Liberals can never win these seats.
It would be fair to say that in past Labor's policy simply did it no damage. On the surface locking in your vote in the heartland seems great but its not. Although NSW with (I think) 48 Seats and VIC with 37 might seem where all the action is but the is in Queensland because although it only holds 30% of the nations seats it swings wildly and its clear what they think about immigration they want less of it, a whole lot less of it.The Liberals problem is they may not convince people they are shrinking it enough.
In theory Labor could send immigrants there in the hope of building a Labor heartland but in practice it's impossible and Labor know it, migrants always head for Sydney and Melbourne
One of the reasons people like those areas is they are real communities because they share broad Australian tradition and one the reasons they dislike Labor heartland areas in Sydney & Melbourne as they are phony "Communities" that the Labor Multi Culti left speak.
Having lived in Campsie in Sydney which is the type of suburb non discriminatory large immigration creates, it is whole lot of people who can barely put up with each other, all based ethnic grouping.
The Australian people have woken up what living in Multicultural place is really like and both parties have problems outside Queensland. On the outskirts of Sydney and the regional areas basically the further out you go the less diverse it gets. Travel even as short a distance as Sydney to Gosford and be amazed at how much more Anglo it is, this is now the Electorate I am and I can tell you the support for Gosford being more like Campsie would be near enough to nil and we have lots of people who have moved up from Sydney, It is also one of the most Marginal seats in the country and was held by the disgraceful Belinda Neal.
On the outskirts Sydney (I can't speak for Melbourne) people are waking up the fact that the reason you can't buy house anywhere and its cheaper to rent in Central Paris than Sydney is directly supply/demand issue strongly (though admittedly not exclusively) very high migrant levels especially rental levels driven by student.
Here is where we hit the Liberals problems, they have great number of supporters with a vested interest in sky high real estate and corporate backers who can get a lot of influence to keep numbers high and hence the tendency (with the lack of a bottomless bucket of union money like Labor)to do their bidding, however you can bet they won't do their bidding at cost of electoral suicide, however it will always be an upward force on what should be a downward number.
All that said, Mark you are correct this is a very good change in direction, a race to bottom for lowest migrant intake I see both Catherine Deveney and Bernard Salt having heart attacks.
Hanson never had the urbane charm to attract the middle-classes.ReplyDelete
I think that's right. You have to remember that before Hanson there was AAFI (Australians Against Further Immigration). It was quite successful, polling very well in by-elections.
Hanson then rose to prominence. She did have courage to raise the issues and she had some personal charisma. But she wasn't articulate, she was too interested in combining politics with the making of money, and she too much wanted to dominate the party.
There was a process in the party by which anyone under the age of 75 who had any political talent and any capacity for independent thought was tapped on the shoulder and asked to leave.
And Hesper is correct that there was never a middle-class membership and it's very difficult to run a party professionally without such input.
It's a shame as there was a momentum for change for a number of years, one initiated first out of Melbourne and then built on in Sydney by AAFI.
Spot on Mr. Richardson.ReplyDelete
What's needed to fire the bourgeoisie with the courage to pursue their inward migrant apprehensions, the middle-aged female professional, or the usually grim and sober greybeard accountant, and vote for a severe remedy to this severe danger, is someone who is respected by those whom they judge respectable.
What's needed to entice this class is someone who quotes Goethe for his witty puns, or reflects on Gibbon's disapproving comments about the hazard of a large and hostile body of foreigners injected into the heart of a nation.
A politician with a "hard right' anti-invasion proposal who flattered the intellectual vanity and calmed the moral unease of such a class would win, and yet articulated the boon of severely restricted immigration to the white workers - a Bob Hawke of the traditional Right not seen since Menzies or Lyons.
What you have been saying about 80 % of migrants making for Sydney or Melbourne definitely vindicates my views that we (most Western countries) are headed for secession. Once migrants swell the numbers to the extent NSW and Victoria have more seats for a growing population, Australia will be dominated from the South and by non-white migrants. Then, WA and Queensland could contemplate seceding as these are the two states where Whites are an overwhelming majority. I visited Sydney two years ago and I was surprised at how many Asians there were, above all in the centre of the city, although population make-up tends to change as you get further from the centre (it was definitely different in Watsons Bay or Rushcutters Bay). Your whole Anglo inheritance is at stake. By contrast, Brisbane is far less Asian than Sydney, although it also has significant numbers of non-white migrants. Immigration should be kept at minimal levels, 170,000 a year is enough to recall some of the Ancient World's armies (Alexander the Great's campaign against Persia in the fourth century BC). It is half Napoleon's army in the campaign against Russia (1812) entering Australia on a yearly basis! Invasion is the word. I definitely agree any Western nation's immigration policy should be to restrict entry to those of our kin, to culturally, ethnically close countries with but a few exceptions for migrants who have proven they are willing fully to assimilate (few meaning perhaps one thousand a year). Tony Abbott, however, is essentially correct when saying population growth must be driven by Australians and not migrants.ReplyDelete
Of course, the Liberals will never relinquish their soft policies on immigration. As was underlined in a previous comment, the donors to the party have too big an interest in keeping up high levels of immigration that drive house prices up, and many of them, despite Tony Abbott's recent statements, still mistakenly believe immigration will allow more economic growth and avoid skills shortage. The Coalition's policies are not nearly sufficient enough to stave off the threat of an Australia that would turn into a Third World country and a banana republic, for they would scrap the monarchy in due time.
Demography is destiny. I read Meerkat's comments and I still think we are all doomed. For our own sanity and peace of mind I think each of us has only one of two choices:ReplyDelete
A. We can leave Australia and try to find a better life elsewhere.
B. We can accept the fact that the old Australia has been betrayed by its ruling class and has been permanently defeated.
The new Australia is going to be very multi-ethnic; increasingly Chinese and Indian; dominated by liberals, socialists and left-wingers and a far more dangerous and expensive place to live then it used to be.
Sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings. Please don't shoot the messenger.
It's still too early to be so defeatist. We should all be trying to make whatever difference we can - as a matter of principle if nothing else. I have a demanding job and a young family and yet I still put in a few hours a week to political activities. If even a few hundred intelligent people did likewise there would be a starting point for a counterpolitics. Maybe not everything about the old Australia could be salvaged, but something of it could.
Option C. Put a pistol to your head and blow your brains out.ReplyDelete
Option D. Deal with the situation as it is and make the best of it.
I go with D. I just got back from a Liberal party meeting and the small L members who are largely concerned with finance, competence in govt and freedom, were all quite demoralised about their chances at this election. Nor did they even see themselves necessarily winning the next State election in NSW, despite the colossal lead of the Liberal party.
The reason for their downward spirits, is not just because of their interpretation of the polling, it is I believe because of the limited nature of their small L politics. More freedom, done that, finance, yeah sure other things matter too, competence in govt, this question is always open for argument and you can only really prove incompetence by showing the other side consistently failing, which is a very weak strategy. They aren't confident ultimately because their intellectual political framework is weak.
The conservative members on the other hand were far more optimistic. This is because the conservative agenda is a real one, God and country, and it doesn't easily get tired. Individualism is ultimately a street you can only travel so far down. People need people, they need connection, they need identity and they need purpose. Conservatism supplies all these things as does national identity.
Rather than the donors controlling the party the membership also does so if the membership is little L then the party reflects that.
Why doesn't the Liberal party just cut immigration? Well they're promising to. Why don't they cut it more? Well why as a kid didn't you pick up your parents favorite vase and smash it if you were annoyed? You could have, you had the ability to, it was right there and your arms worked. Because you were inhibited from doing so. You also knew that there would be consequences if you did. The consequences for the Liberals takes the form of public pressure, opposition from the media, the intelligentsia, the judiciary, the fact that by doing so it creates a huge public controversy and public controversies don't help you get elected or stay elected. The inhibition comes from knowing that their political intellectual views are not on top. A political party is a boat and it can only go where the water is, and the water is public approval or at least lack of outright controversy. (Truly great leaders can create public approval but that's what makes them great).
So there’s guts and then there’s stupidity. Hanson was a stupid little poppett God bless her but she was effective up to a point. Not anywhere near 60% though and not really outside of Queensland. Facts ruin your rants though Anon so best not pay attention to them. You might want to do us all a favor though and censor yourself.
The reason immigration is being debated now is because it was raised by the Left. The reason the Left's comments and policies aren't hugely controversial is because THE LEFT IS THE DOMINATE INTELLECTUAL MOVEMENT AT THE MOMENT. If you want to change things then change that.
The Left can't do just anything. They couldn't bring in the mining tax in its original form because that smacked too much of 40-70's Labor nationalisation policies and class warfare and that had been seriously discredited. You don't want to have to wait for every Left idea to be discredited by their outcomes before you stop them though. You have to get out in front of the issues before they happen or stop them as they happen.
Today people are pissed with immigration and that's why its an issue. If people are pissed then you have traction to move. So we see movement. So let’s move.
So we see movement. So let’s move.ReplyDelete
Jesse, you're right. Politics is often about catching the wave. And there is an unusually favourable moment right now to push forward the immigration issue.
Sorry if I went off too hard. I think Immigration will only be a bigger political issue in the future not a smaller one.ReplyDelete
Jesse, there is more than one anon on the forum. I will set up a nick name shortly to make it a bit easier to distinguish my posts from others so you don't confuse us.ReplyDelete
I am very much aware of the perils of invoking Godwin's law here towards the end of this very interesting thread, but at the risk of doing so I must say that Mark's comments remind me very much of a particular scene from the movie "Downfall" which was set around the last days of the Third Reich. (And everyone relax please I'm not saying that anyone here has any views remotely supportive of that despicable regime). Many people will recognize this movie from all the YouTube parodies that are floating around currently.
In the movie, the leader (we all know who I am referring to) - was being implored by his supporters not to give up hope for a final victory even though the Russians were just a few blocks away and you could hear the sound of their Katyusha rockets landing nearby.
When asked why he didn't want to escape the bunker in Berlin he basically said what's the point of sneaking out and hiding in barn somewhere he'd be just like a Tibetan Lama there spinning his prayer wheel.
When I think of Mark gaining some solace from the fact that Abbot - who isn't even likely to win the election - is promising to drop immigration to 170,000 p.a. I picture him sitting in a barn somewhere spinning a prayer wheel. You see, Mark, one man's defeatism is another man's realism. And I say that with the greatest respect and admiration for your work here.
I am reminded of another saying, "you cannot put a picket fence up against the tide". But yes Jesse, I agree that we just need to get on with things regardless. We're all - myself included - going to have to move with the times while preserving what we believe was worthy about the Australia we once knew and what it stood for. Things such as a fair go, larrikinism, a healthy lack of respect for authority figures, a disdain for political correctness and an unshakeable loyalty to our mates.
Sorry I should have been more specific as to who I was addressing. Hmmm we should also remember that while immigrants are very visible in some sectors, they are still a relatively small or not dominant percentage of society. I'm not sure what the precise stats are.ReplyDelete
Its important that we don't become demoralised or too demoralised . Society is a very complex beast and we can feel lost in it and feel that we can't alter things. You'd be surprised what you can do though. Not as one person you don't bring everything around as one person, but as part of a society or group. Conservatism is a vital beast with deep roots and it is a substantial source of strength.
"A politician with a "hard right' anti-invasion proposal who flattered the intellectual vanity and calmed the moral unease of such a class would win, and yet articulated the boon of severely restricted immigration to the white workers".
That would do it. (It would also be good if we could revive the education system so more people know about Goethe and Gibbons ;)).