Voters in key marginal seats have forgiven Kevin Rudd and are clamouring for him to return to the Labor leadership.I do understand Gillard's unpopularity. She is proposing a carbon tax at a time when many families are already having to cope with rising costs. But Rudd? He was the guy who sent immigration levels to a record high.
In 2008 under Kevin Rudd net migration hit 316,000. Given that there are usually around 80,000 departures, that means that even on official figures there were about 400,000 arrivals. That's an enormous number of arrivals for a country with Australia's population: it would be the equivalent of about 5,500,000 arrivals in the USA in single year.
It led to a welcome backlash with both the Labor and Liberal parties backing away from Rudd's commitment to a "big Australia". And the Labor Party under Gillard does seem to have drawn the figures back down a little, with net migration being cut to 171,000 in 2010 - which, if I remember correctly, is exactly the figure Tony Abbott promised the Liberal Party would cut the number to.
So whatever Gillard's failings, I wouldn't be in too much of a hurry to turn back to Kevin Rudd.
"...It led to a welcome backlash with both the Labor and Liberal parties backing away from Rudd's commitment to a 'big Australia'. "ReplyDelete
In spin but not in substance. Gillard has actually lifted the skilled intake while shutting down some of the more egregious scams and rorts that were taking place in the visa factories.
There is only one party which is committed to ending the madness that is unending mass-immigration and that is the Stable Population Party of Australia.
We all know the libs like mass immigration because it puts downward pressure on wages, which hits inflation, which affects interest rates.ReplyDelete
The libs see this as a way to increase the overall productivity of the workforce and as a way for Oz based companies to compete with cheaper overseas labour. Simply import the cheap labour here so the money stays in the economy.
All of this is disputed [Economists are rather argumentative] but the libs see clear economic reasons for supporting mass-migration and the replacement of Aussies with other cultures. They believe it will make society wealthier overall which will make more people well-off enough to buy the lifestyle they desire.
This hooks very firmly into Mark's ideas about Autonomy.
Thr Lefties support mass immigration primarily because they want to destroy Australia, because they see us as evil [for various inane and borderline insane reasons of their own].
OT an interesting wedding blog from a Melbourne Asian couple.ReplyDelete
Cannot help but feel sorry for this poor little rich Asian boy.
I just looked up the stable population party. They have some interesting ideas but still spout the "save the environment" left wing rubbish.
One of the issues is that average citizens in Australia would much rather spend money than earn it. They want a life of high standards of living and perpetual holidays. They see immigrants as a way to farm out the dirty jobs they deem below them. Even the biggest bogan feels superior if they earn enough to have an immigrant cleaner. How can this illdisciplined and work adverse population realistically live without immigrants? It will be a culture shock for them if they did start to dry up.
The most important countries in the coming years are not going to be the "big" countries but the solvent, productive ones. Canada is in good shape to be one of those; we must make sure we get on that wagon soon (ie next election). It's going to be a rough ride for countries that are struggling with debt already, because it's not going to get easier.ReplyDelete
Jesse_7 I read your post with dismay. If the Stable Population Party made the focus of their platform "Save Australia for the white Race - kick all the foreigners out" how far exactly do you think that would get them? As things stand they have to constantly defend themselves from left-wing journos against accusations they are racist simply by daring to question mass-immigration.ReplyDelete
If these people were the left wingers you are making them out to be they would have joined the Greens or the Socialist Alliance instead. Population is their focus, not the environment. The former impacts the latter as well as the livability of our cities, hospital queues, housing affordability, infrastructure, per capita GDP etc.
By the way, I live in the outer burbs and I don't know any bogans with immigrant cleaners. Stop bashing the bogans please. Makes you sound like a latte-sipping toff from Vaucluse.
Vacluse is a nice suburb, and I've got plenty for them too. I take your point about the presentation v reality and I appreciate your pointing out the party to me. This issue, however, is not a matter of efficiency, productivity or "sustainable" lifestylyes but rather one of national survival. Sooner or latter that issue has to be accepted.ReplyDelete
On the matter about the cleaners we live in a world/country dominated by matierialistic concerns. Looked at through that framework there are I'm sure materialistic advantages to immigration. This issue, however, shouldn't be discussed solely on that level. If people look for what is truely in their and their countries interests rather than seeking shorter term comforts or material benefits (or even ego superiority derived through being in a superior position over the new arrivals), they'll be on the front foot demanding a cessation.
Remember the desire to seek comfort through avoiding conflict is also a symptom of indulgence.
This issue, however, is not a matter of efficiency, productivity or "sustainable" lifestyles but rather one of national survival.ReplyDelete
I think what you mean by "survival" is the continuance of white ethnic/racial hegemony, numerical superiority, political power and cultural dominance. There is no question that white Australians will survive in an Australia in which they are a minority but what is worrying many people - particularly conservative folk - is that this may mean the surrender of the 'nation' as we know it ethnically and culturally if present trends continue. Although having said that, there are many newcomers from Asia who embrace our culture, language and lifestyle. There are also many that don't and there are others yet again that don't currently embrace it but will over time.
The Afrikaners are a case in point. White Australia must be careful to avoid running immigration to the point where it loses political power and another group takes over that is less enthused about 'diversity' and political correctness and more interested in channelling the benefits of political power to their own ethnic group. The Afrikaaners were totally outnumbered and had no choice but to engage in a permanent civil war or to "embrace change" (read: surrender political power). They have survived in the so-called new South Africa (farm murders aside) but now they are being royally screwed over by the ANC-dominated government and made into second class citizens.
Sooner or latter that issue has to be accepted.
I think it already is accepted that the change to Australia's ethnic make up from a predominantly European to an Asian one is proceeding at an increasingly rapid pace. The 'issue' as you put it is not one which is going to be discussed or considered 'a problem' as such by our current political parties. Most of our current political leaders actively take a pride in the handing over the country from one ethnic group to another as it accords with their liberal 'values' and white guilt eg. Bob Hawke. In Howard's case, his motivation was 'the economy'. I think the best we can hope for is for changes to be made at the margin - to try to wind back the extreme levels of migration that have been occuring in the past 10 years in particular. We'll never go back to the WAP and we'll never have zero net migration. The best we can hope to achieve in a world where white folks are not breeding and are aborting themselves into oblivion is a brief "stay of execution" before we do hand over power in the new world countries like Canada, the US, Australia and NZ.
On the matter about the cleaners we live in a world/country dominated by matierialistic concerns.
Agreed. Interestingly enough it was Marx who pointed this out when he put forward his theory that history is driven largely by material concerns, not ideas (historical idealism). This formed the basis of his framework known as historical materialism. Not saying you're a Marxist though :-) But I think old KM was right on the money here if you'll pardon the pun.
Looked at through that framework there are I'm sure materialistic advantages to immigration.
Definitely, but there are winners and losers. The winners are the people who can benefit economically from mass-immigration. There are many of them. But there are also a lot of people who have to travel further to work, pay more for their houses, wait longer in hospital queues, have their wages undercut etc.
This issue, however, shouldn't be discussed solely on that level.
Agreed 100%. The tragedy of modern Australia is that the left has stolen our right to consider ourselves a nation of any kind. The mass-immigrationists at the top end of town are laughing all the way to the bank when the see the multicultural mullahs of the left use the racist card to stifle debate and dissent.
If people look for what is truely in their and their countries interests rather than seeking shorter term comforts or material benefits (or even ego superiority derived through being in a superior position over the new arrivals), they'll be on the front foot demanding a cessation.
I think it all boils down to the way policies are implemented. In the United Arab Emirates, for example, they have a huge migrant labour force but they jealously guard their citizenship. No-one accuses them of being racists. We, however, give away our passports with reckless abandon.
Remember the desire to seek comfort through avoiding conflict is also a symptom of indulgence.
Perhaps, but sometimes if you can't overthrow a system you need to work within it. Think of the Greens for example. If it were up to them we'd be all frog marched out of the cities, Khmer Rouge style, and sent to live on collective farms for the glory of socialism. Obviously that's not a realistic goal so they compromise and work within the system. Now they have the balance of power. Conservatives would do well to imitate their strategy.
Good comment Anonymous,ReplyDelete
My main point was that this new party also isn't grasping the nettle on this issue. Yes reducing immigration numbers is important but accepting why mass immigration isn't good isn't being argued, outside of the economic and environmental grounds mentioned. We must argue on the essential "idea" behind why opposition to immigration is right if we are to remain an Anglo Saxon nation.
'This issue, however, is not a matter of efficiency, productivity or "sustainable" lifestylyes but rather one of national survival. Sooner or latter that issue has to be accepted...Remember the desire to seek comfort through avoiding conflict is also a symptom of indulgence.'ReplyDelete
Very well said (or typed).
Right wing groups are always debating 'tactics' or how to spin it to the media. What's wrong with saying I/we want what's best for Australia's interests with regards to an immigration program?
Sure the media will come after you but you will have a much better chance of getting your message out to your audience. The general population know deep down that something is wrong, they need to be told what it is.
Cloaking your argument in gainism like the so called Stable Population Party of Australia (what a bloody mouthful) is a fools error. If they are true nationalists and not just another bunch of whackos they're shooting themselves in the foot.
One of the big issues in this debate is individualism as too much individualism ultimately undermines national/cultural identity and tradition. If we argue against immigration on the grounds of what is good for the individual then we could be playing into the oppositions hands.ReplyDelete
""too much individualism ultimately undermines national/cultural identity and tradition.""ReplyDelete
I disagree, but depending on the definition of Individualism.
I truly believe that if a society is allowed to go it's own way without state intervention into the social arena [such as education, health etc] then people following their own rational best interest will overwhelmingly follow traditionalist lifestyles simply for reasons of pragmatism.
If you have no State to give you healthcare, welfare and to look after you from cradle to grave then you are forced to rely on family and local community/faith organisations. This was certainly the pattern before the introduction of the welfare state.