[foxdemon]

According to the guardian the majority of boat arrivals are from Afghanistan and Iran.

That is the current situation. The war in Sri Lanka came to an end a year or two ago and many Tamils sort refuge in Australia. These people are of the sort the refuge convention was aimed at, I might point out. But that war had nothing to do with America.

The thread was focused on boat arrivals so I overlooked other methods. We should acknowledge Australian efforts to provide asylum to others. This also begs the question as to why this system cannot be expanded. Perhaps Australia could explore ways to share the burden of relocating refugees with other nations. The structure of the Malaysia solution proposal suggests that numbers aren't Australia's biggest concern.

The problem with expanding the number of nations taking in refugees is problematic due to the state the world is in. Let me explain by reference to historical refugee settlement in Australia.


In the 1950's and 60', Australia took in many European refugees in order to relieve press on the reconstruction of Europe after WW2. Many of these refugees had been associated with the Nazis and settling them in Australia would avoid conflicts in Europe caused by those seeking revenge. This ensured stability.


Now in those days there was full employment in Australia. Actually I think the unemployment rate was 1% or lower. It was not any problem to find those refugees employment as there was major infrastructure projects under way (eg: Snowy Mountain Scheme). Also there were many state owned enterprises to take people on and train them. So integrating refugees was easy.


These days unemployment is officially around 5% but much higher, especially amongst the youth. It isn't easy these days to break into the labour market. This makes it very much harder to settle refugees and integrate them into the economy and community.


Now Australia is actually better off than most countries in regard to the economic situation. I am trying to think of affluent countries with low unemployment. I can think of Singapore but I doubt many refugees could be squeezed in. Japan or S Korea are affluent but I am not sure their have low unemployment. In Japan's case they have serious economic issues to resolve. China is becoming more affluent, second biggest economy in the world in fact. But there is considerable economic inequality (as bad as in the USA I hear). Maybe China could take refugees, but their unemployment rate might rule this out.


The countries that are taking refugees have ailing economies. America takes the most, I believe. Some 60,000 per year. But the economy over there is in dire straights. Europe is in debt and their rate of growth is unlikely to reach a level to cope with debt levels. That means they are stuffed for a very long time. Unemployment in Europe is around 10% I think. Much higher amongst the youth.


There simply isn't much prospect in the world for integrating refugees at this time. Yet there are at least around 45 million refugees waiting for resettlement. The world today really does suck that bad. It is a very different place from the 1950's and 60's.

[Igor Antunov]

[youtube]6_1SFf8t-ko[/youtube]

[foxdemon]

^
The bogan from Logan doesn't like halal symbols on her Vegemite jar. Does that count as a party policy?

[jessupjonesjnr87]

God help Australia, I think the heat is finally getting to them. The same thing happened in Texas and look at them now.

[foxdemon]

Here's what Malcome Fraser thinks about the Asylum issue.

Former Liberal prime minister Malcolm Fraser has labelled Foreign Minister Bob Carr's claim that a growing number of boat arrivals in Australia are economic refugees, not asylum seekers, as a ''total nonsense'' and ''fantasy''.

Mr Fraser, who has been a vocal critic of the asylum seeker policies of both major parties, said that Senator Carr had no evidence for his claim.

......

''If the government had wanted Australians to understand the nature of the issue they would also have tried to explain why there has been this growth worldwide in the number of asylum seekers,'' he said.

He is right that the government often shows poor leadership by being frugal with the truth. This applies to other areas also, such as economic policy.

But he said that he also wanted to support the Greens immigration spokeswoman to try and ensure that neither of the major parties gained control of the Senate.

''I don't think the policies of either party from the way the parties have performed leads to the idea that they could be trusted with authority or majority in both houses,'' he said.

I'm inclined to agree. The Liberals are too much like American Republicans and Labor are a bunch of tools. The Greens and Katter's party both have some good policies. If these minor parties have enough seats in the upper house they will be able to reduce the damage whichever major party takes the lower house.


But he has something much more important to say.

Mr Fraser, who was prime minister from 1975 to 1983, enjoyed a majority in the Senate for five years of his prime ministership but said it was ''quite a different kind of majority''.

''It was a very different Liberal Party. It was a Liberal Party and not a conservative party.''
He said that Liberal senators recognised they had a role to review ''and they weren't going to be pushed around''.

Mr Fraser said that given that parties now had such tight control over pre-selections, many MPs were frightened to exercise their own judgment.

''In my day, if I'd tried to say that an issue of gay marriage, for example, was not a conscience issue, people would have said 'Look, my conscience is my affair ...','' he said.

The political culture in Australia certainly has changed since his generation. It is a real shame political freedom (freedom of conscience being one form) is not valued any more.

[AVT]

during the 1970s the last time boat arrivals were in large numbers it was handled and there was a bipartisan policy it it by and large was not a political issue. With no real difference between the major parties why can it not be handled similarly without the media driven hysteria.

The Coalition is also greeting the news of very low interest rates as a bad sign of the economy being weak. They have made much hay over the years with a simplistic slogan of labour = high rates = bad management, now low rates = bad management. They have repeated claimed both Howard and Abbot that "interest rates would ALWAYS be lower under a coalition government" so are they saying if we had a coalition government the interest rates would be even lower and the economy weaker? Their sound bite slogan , has been shown up for the pile of fetid dingo kidneys that it always was, the debate about the economy shown be a little more nuanced than a cheap slogan. (hmm "stop the boats" it does seem to be their style!) They have effectively said that these recent low interest rates are bad, and with their leadership we would not have them, and therefore there "interest rates would ALWAYS be lower under a coalition government" has been proven wrong. Are they going to say they were wrong?

It was always a bit of a scare tactic to bring interest rates into Howard's election campaigns but it does not make what they are saying now false, interest rates are dropping because the economy is faltering. Whether it is because of Labor mismanagement is debatable but they do have to answer for a record spending spree and increasing red tape, particularly in the mining sector.

[neopagan]

Which project in California are you referring to? I did a quick search on Google and there's a large solar array project in California that will cost over $2 billion.

In terms of what Australia is doing:

http://kogansolarboost.com.au/

I believe the project was the CVSR, but I have lost the original article from Alternative Energy News.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California ... olar_Ranch

As to what is happening in Australia, I have since discovered several interesting solar energy projects. I may have shot my mouth off a bit early. It would not be the first time.

Foxdemon, thanks for those links. On the subject of transmission lines, most locations in Australia have abundant sunshine. The arrays don't need to be far away from the consumer. As you probably know, sometimes we have too much damn sunshine.

[pugsville]

What they are saying now makes what they said before false. The whole interest rates will always be lower under the coalition was always unbelievable load of crap. It's likes the debt surplus deficit slogans they are running now. Just pure sloganeering which totally lacks substance. Sure labor's running scare campaigns in the past and in this election (the GST factor) . The Libs just seem to always go the simple slogan. (or perhaps that just better at this aspect of media manipulation)

[AVT]

What they are saying now makes what they said before false. The whole interest rates will always be lower under the coalition was always unbelievable load of crap. It's likes the debt surplus deficit slogans they are running now. Just pure sloganeering which totally lacks substance. Sure labor's running scare campaigns in the past and in this election (the GST factor) . The Libs just seem to always go the simple slogan. (or perhaps that just better at this aspect of media manipulation)

They go for simple slogans as that is what shapes peoples opinions in our modern time deficient lives, quick 20 second soundbites in the radio and TV bulletins are all the political parties now have to connect with a large portion of the electorate.

[Igor Antunov]

Abbot has made a fool of himself repeatedly over the past week. His prospects are looking slim.

[foxdemon]

Abbot has made a fool of himself repeatedly over the past week. His prospects are looking slim.

Rudd is a tool but Labor will be better for foreign policy and the NBN. Liberal ideas on NBN will make it a waste of money. May well not have bothered if they go for their slow system. Labor should get another term just so they can finish off the NBN before the Liberals have a chance to trash it.

[AVT]

Rudd is a tool but Labor will be better for foreign policy and the NBN. Liberal ideas on NBN will make it a waste of money. May well not have bothered if they go for their slow system. Labor should get another term just so they can finish off the NBN before the Liberals have a chance to trash it.

I was undecided on the issue until I heard Turnbull speak about it the other day. The coalition network will be slower but the speeds that the NBN is to provide are simply just not needed at the moment by the vast majority of residential users. The coalition policy is far more cost effective as is a client wants increased speed they can pay to have a cable put in between their premise and their nearest node. This way people will get faster internet, and users that will need the huge speeds talked about with the NBN can have them if they choose to upgrade.

[AVT]

Abbot has made a fool of himself repeatedly over the past week. His prospects are looking slim.

The coalition are ahead 54 to 46 % after 2pp in the latest polling

Igor really you need to do some research.

[Igor Antunov]

Most people decide who they're going to vote for on voting day. And the preffered PM poll is as important because we do have a populist based system, and we do actually vote for a pm, not just a party-despite what they tell us. Ultimately these phone polls have a use by date that consist of the day they were conducted on.

The coalition network will be slower but the speeds that the NBN is to provide are simply just not needed at the moment by the vast majority of residential users.

Those who haven't a clue about technology, should not get to decide technology-based policies. The Liberal broadband scheme is a slap to the face.

I'm paying for a 20mb connection and now getting 1.7mb. If I want the 'super fast' 4mb I used to get I have to request lessened filtering on the ISP-side and deal with drop-outs every 30 mins. The copper lines have continued to degrade over the years, our line rental has increased by 200% since 2004, and the private telco (which the liberals would focus their 'funding' on and entrust it with providing a better service) hasn't never upgraded the exchange which is just 2km from my house in an urban area-which means the exchange is overloaded and everyone gets to enjoy super fast 3rd world speeds @ $111/month. All this despite us paying more than ever for the upkeep of these lines. It was 2006 when I obtained broadband speeds of a mighty 1mb. Now I'm on almost 2mb 7 years later. Somewhere along the line, somebody fucked up. That is now being addressed and old dumbo wants to throw a spanner in the works because his corporate buddies don't like being left out.

My business depends on my connection not continuing to suck. There is SOOOOO much more I could do, so many doors would open, if I had the connection of a fucking 1st world resident. I could get myself an office in a high speed area in the city, so by all means feel free to forward me the $7,000/week in rent it would cost.

The one thing that is so sorely lacking-1st class physical connections of homesteads to the regional communications infrastructure-would not even be on the agenda of the liberal scheme. There is no excuse, we have the money.

Everything else is peripheral and irrelevant. The entire boat people dance-99% of illegals enter the country by plane. Our foreign policy will continue to suckle foreign cock for a pat on the head entangling us in places we have no logical business in. Our resource base will continue being prostituted instead of being moved up the value chain. Our economy will for the most part continue running on autopilot, with the occasional tweak entirely reactionary to offshore market trends and instigated by the big banks, not the government itself.

[foxdemon]

The coalition network will be slower but the speeds that the NBN is to provide are simply just not needed at the moment by the vast majority of residential users.

If we are going to spend so much money on this infrastructure, we ought go for top performance. Speed and data usage demands are only going to increase and increase fast. We need the capacity and speed to keep up with global communication standards or we will be left behind.

The Liberal Party's idea is dumb. We may as well not have bothered with the NBN if we will get the performance of their sub standard alternative. The Liberal idea is wasting the money already committed. Why spend all that money on something that will be inadequate? May as well spend the extra and get something worthwhile. Or else we will have to spend another fortune catching up in 10 years time.

[pugsville]

NBN if we're going to do it you have to overkill. This is IT things tend to date. To spend the money and then have it inadequate in 10 years would be not good. Any NBN should be aimed at fair amount of overkill or order to give it some ability to meet the likely growth in demand for bandwidth. To build NBN -lite increase the chances that it could date sooner.

[AVT]

If we are going to spend so much money on this infrastructure, we ought go for top performance. Speed and data usage demands are only going to increase and increase fast. We need the capacity and speed to keep up with global communication standards or we will be left behind.

The Liberal Party's idea is dumb. We may as well not have bothered with the NBN if we will get the performance of their sub standard alternative. The Liberal idea is wasting the money already committed. Why spend all that money on something that will be inadequate? May as well spend the extra and get something worthwhile. Or else we will have to spend another fortune catching up in 10 years time.

You are missing the point, the coalition network is easy to upgrade when we need the capacity, labor are proposing something that is far ahead of its time, it will provide ridiculous speed to residences that at most use the internet for downloading pirated movies and a bit of online shopping. I see a future where those speeds will be needed, but it is not here, the coalition network is far more cost effective for a budget that is seriously in the red.

Most people decide who they're going to vote for on voting day. And the preffered PM poll is as important because we do have a populist based system, and we do actually vote for a pm, not just a party-despite what they tell us. Ultimately these phone polls have a use by date that consist of the day they were conducted on.

Everything else is peripheral and irrelevant. The entire boat people dance-99% of illegals enter the country by plane. Our foreign policy will continue to suckle foreign cock for a pat on the head entangling us in places we have no logical business in. Our resource base will continue being prostituted instead of being moved up the value chain. Our economy will for the most part continue running on autopilot, with the occasional tweak entirely reactionary to offshore market trends and instigated by the big banks, not the government itself.

No they don't Igor, at best 10% may decide on the day. I also offer as proof the betting odds, which are rarely wrong when it comes to Australian elections, Coalition $1.10 vs Labor $7.00. I really wish you would do some research instead of trying to dress your opinion up as facts. By definition of our system we do not vote for a PM, we vote for our local candidate with the party that wins the most seats asked to form government.

[Igor Antunov]

Whatever happens, we lose. You've resorted to TAB betting odds to illustrate the farcical nature of this election system.

And in a developed economy the only avenue for growth (outside of the resource whoring sector) is the fast moving IT sector. By stifling our capacity for world class broadband development, the liberals would ensure a sad future for the worlds fastest growing industry in this country.

You are missing the point, the coalition network is easy to upgrade when we need the capacity, labor are proposing something that is far ahead of its time

No it isn't far ahead of its time. It is the best there is today, and we deserve to have it for reasons outlined above. And there won't be anything to upgrade regarding the coalition scheme because they aren't actually going to install fiber to households.

[Swagman]

If the technology is crucial then the market will ensure that it's available not the taxpayer.

[Igor Antunov]

If you're going to rely on the market for crucial infrastructure mega projects on the national scale (there is no way around it, it is going to be expensive and all-encompassing) then good luck with that and see how far you fall behind.