But if you have a government that ( to an outsider, at least ) that is efficient, not blatantly corrupt, runs the country as a very profitable enterprise and maintains a high standard of living for all, is it not preferable to the clusterfcuks that run ( ruin ? ) the UK, US, Oz, and much of Europe ?

Everyone's different, but I wouldn't want to live there. I like to have a say.
They probably wouldn't want me living there either, so it works out well. :E

Much as we all love a good whinge, Australia is not in nearly so bad a state as much of Europe. Nor do we have the level of foreign migration that Europe and the UK have had for years.
Some of those mullahs in the UK are hateful and very frightening and I'm constantly amazed that your government and community puts up with them. However, we don't get that sort of thing, at least not as overtly. We don't tolerate it and even the firebrands know that. Nor do we get extreme Christianity like the USA does, I suspect for the same reason.

With respect, I think you may be transferring the current British situation to Australia, and they're very different countries with surprisingly different values, even if we borrowed your flag and we all enjoy tea. :)

WitW, what many people in Australia who've experienced the situation in the UK first hand (as I have) are trying to do is to prevent the situation here ever reaching anything approaching the current situation in the UK, France, Sweden and other nations in Western Europe.

I think if you spoke to police, ambulance and fireman 'at the coal face' in Sydney's western suburbs, (rather than Politically Correct spokesmen), you might be a little less sanguine about how far we have to go before we're in a situation similar to that "enjoyed" by western Europe today.

Labor and the Greens, with their immigration policies, seem hellbent on accelerating our current situation into what the UK, France and the rest of Western Europe today "enjoys" by copying the soft border/immigration policies that have proven to be disastrous in those countries. Every time I hear Sarah Hanson-Young prattling on with her pious platitudes, I want to scream. The woman shouldn't be allowed to mind pre-schoolers, let alone have any part in drafting national policies.

[quote] Andu

WitW, what many people in Australia who've experienced the situation in the UK first hand (as I have) are trying to do is to prevent the situation here ever reaching anything approaching the current situation in the UK, France, Sweden and other nations in Western Europe.


:D:D:D I'm English, I have friends there !!

Then as I suspected, Sydney has a law and order problem and the State government should get off their butts and deal with it. I also have no time for the Sarah Hanson Youngs of this world, but I think people deserve a fair go until they show otherwise, even if they look weird. We have fairly regular swings of government at the Federal level (wait, there's one coming now...;)) so the Greens don't get much of a chance to stuff up the immigration policy. Again, the vast majority of immigrants are Poms and South Africans. If any group really has bumped up the list recently it's the Indians.

Brisbane doesn't have large criminal gangs of this particular ethnicity, and I don't believe Perth, Adelaide Darwin or Hobart do either? If the Sydney coppers had jumped on these gangs twenty years ago, they wouldn't be left with the mess they have now. That's what happened to the Viet gangs in Brisbane when they started getting a bit too proactive in the 1980s, and while the problem hasn't gone away, it was certainly made a lot more manageable.

Trouble is, many years of PC governments in NSW (which people kept voting for :ugh:) weren't conductive to effective policing. That's what happens when you let politicians interfere too much with law enforcement. I can't comment on Melbourne because TBQH I know next to nothing about the place.

I guess I don't like to see people foaming at the mouth about Them, (where Them is defined as the most recently arrived ethnic group). Them were Irish, then Italians, then Chinese, then Viets and this week Them are Muslims. BTW I'm not suggesting that you or anyone else on here is a mouth-foamer, but you know the sort of people I mean. The sort of people who abuse random women in the street because they're dressed differently and yell 'talk Australian' at anyone speaking in a foreign language. Every person in this country who is not full blooded Indigenous has anscestors who were immigrants. I think a lot of mouth foamers forget that.

Fair enough and it pays to be dilligent. However, even in the two big cities, our ethnic diversity is nowhere near that of Europe and the UK, because we simply don't let that many foreigners in. There may be isolated trouble makers but I don't see Australians as a group ever tolerating the level of ethnic dissidence they put up with in Europe. Nor do I see the federal government tolerating it (even the current collection of koalas), because apart from anything else, it's not a vote winner. All the countries you mention are democracies. If people didn't support the migration policies, why did they keep voting for the governments that advocated them?

P.S. Remember how the Poms and Euros always used to have a go at us because of our 'racist' immigration policies? Haven't heard much of it recently...:oh:

Well, in Melbournes Northern suburbs, it's the White trash that give us most problems, but who knows what the future will bring... :uhoh:

I did think that Singapore had the right idea when they restricted access to neighborhoods/apartments based on ethnic lines. There's no chance of any particular ethnic 'suburbs' as we know it.

If you think of Lebanon and Egypt prior to, maybe, the late 60's, I think from memory, most religious groups happily co-existed. It probably wasn't happy bunny land or anything, but co-existence. We should (read Pollies) be looking at what allowed them to live together peacefully.

Off the migrant angle for a moment, and back to the Carbon Tax train wreck.

Some articles I have read yesterday and today:

PLASTIC recycling companies will have to slash hundreds of jobs or face going bust because of the carbon tax that was designed to help the environment.
Electricity costs will soar by 10 per cent next financial year as a result of the tax, according to official Treasury estimates, but recyclers warn the increases will send them broke.
The federal government said businesses should pass on higher electricity prices to households, which will be compensated for the tax. But energy-intensive recycling companies, which melt waste plastic so it can be reused, say they will go out of business unless they match the prices of cheap imports.
Kim Jones, of Sydney plastic recycler and manufacturer Cromford, said he was currently selling products for less than he was 10 years ago.
"I can't pass on the higher energy costs because I am competing against imported products which have a significant advantage," he said.
Recyclers warn carbon tax will hurt industry | thetelegraph.com.au

THE federal Labor government and its supporters occasionally depict opponents of the forthcoming carbon tax as being enemies of the environment and not caring at all for Australia's ecological wellbeing.
This is a narrow and divisive tactic. In fact, it is entirely possible to be concerned about the environment and to act on those concerns without being convinced that a carbon tax is necessarily worthwhile.
Many Australians who consider themselves to be environmentally aware prefer more practical or tangible tactics to preserve our ecosystem.
Recycling, for example, helps to reduce the nation's huge daily landfill totals and also cuts back on the use of raw resources.
At the same time, recycling doesn't require the bureaucratic infrastructure needed to administer a carbon tax.
Now comes evidence that the carbon tax, due to take effect on July 1, may actually undermine the efforts of recyclers to improve Australia's ecological circumstances.
Carbon tax an ecological hazard | thetelegraph.com.au

The carbon tax has got cock all to do with reducing emissions or saving the planet or any such similar weirdo sentiments.

It's all about increasing the tax intake to the federal coffers in order to keep Swanny's budget surplus intact. They were elected in 2007 on the basis that they, despite all the evidence to the contrary, were good economic managers and that they wouldn't revert to type. A budget surplus is therefore an article of faith which they think will save them at the next election.

I also think that, having seen the figures, Gillard knew this before she made her infamous pitch to camera. Whilst, at the time of that she may well have intended not to introduce a carbon tax in the immediate future it would have been on the cards within months with or without Greens support.

That's all right, because Gillard is up to her usual goal kicking standard. Own goals, that is...:ooh:
"It came as state Labor leader Annastacia Palaszczuk revealed she was snubbed by Prime Minister Julia Gillard during a weekend visit.
Ms Gillard's office yesterday said "time did not permit" a meeting with Ms Palaszczuk, despite the Prime Minister finding time to meet Mr Newman while in Brisbane on Saturday".

What, no sausage sizzle? No cheesy grins and handshakes for the handful of ALP volunteers who campaigned tirelessly, turned up on election day, tried to hand out how to vote cards and copped shedloads of abuse for their efforts, all for the Party? How about thanking the handful of Labor MPs who actually kept their seats, largely by personal reputation, tenacity and taking all the ALP logos off their election posters? :E
Honestly, she would have been better off not showing up at all and having a video conference with Newman.

Apparently Palaszczuk wanted to discuss declining party membership rates (which indicates that she actually has her finger on the pulse and may be a decent leader), but Jools was just too busy. :rolleyes:

LNP doubts drive audits | The Courier-Mail
Methinks she'll have plenty of spare time after the next election. :E

And you wonder why there are calls of "racism" when people think like you, TZ.

I guess that all blacks are thieves, all Irish Catholics are terrorists, all Catholic priests are child molesters, all aborigines are winos, all Safa's are racist, all Australians are balanced because they have a chip on both shoulders, all Kiwi's have carnal relations with sheep, all Scots are drunks who eat deep fried mars bars, the list goes on. You cannot generalise and stereotype an entire race or religion based on the actions of a minority and not expect tension. And when you try to do that based only on them being "different", it brings you down lower than the decent, law-abiding, tax paying majority of these people that you are calling "scum".

I saw an interview of an old Stuka pilot ruminating on the qualities of leadership. His opinion was that Erwin Rommel had superb judgement for quick reactions, like a fighter pilot, and that Luftwaffe chief Albert Kesselring was a brilliant strategic thinker. Each was respected for his capability.

Unfortunately for Labor, Gillard and her advisers seem to have neither good judgement nor sound strategy. Gillard seems to react on the spot but only to limit damage, not to create any useful advantage. Someone recently said it was good to see some good old Labor thinking - meaning reactive, committee room brawling: possibly Gillard's core skill. Her committee room skills in quickly building ephemeral voting blocs based on self-interest may have mesmerised some ministers who know only the political world, but I'm sure it worries sane adults like Ma'n Fer'g's'n and Simon Crean. The problem for them is - what is to be done? Can they shunt Gillard and re-present the brand (and solve Gillard's largely self-inflicted problems) in time to win enough votes to survive at the next election, let alone win it.

That Gillard must go to see Labor prosper looks increasingly unarguable. Her wooden, 'say nothing' presentation on Meet The Press last Sunday morning was pitiful to watch, and she is hanging onl;y by the hope that 'once the compensation starts flowing from the carbon tax that the average Australia will turn back to Labor. I'd say that what Gillard has lost the Labor Party cannot be bought back with a few dollars.

Here's our PM's performance on Sunday:

Gillard

With the greatest respect, hellsbrink, I think attitudes like yours are the root problem. Everything you say is true about ethnic generalisations, but the gaping hole in your argument is that the problem it seems no politician dares mention, that one group of people (who, I hasten to say, are not an ethnic group, so the cries of "racism" ring hollow) really are different, in that, unlike virtually every other wave (for wave it is) of migrants who have come to the West, a sizeable proportion of this current wave have absolutely no interest in making a better life for themselves within their adopted society. Instead, (like the gentleman in Belgium), they quite openly admit, even boast, that their aim is to change their adopted society - and EVERYONE in it - whether they like it or not, into the society that they (supposedly) were forced to escape from in fear of their lives. (And while they set about doing this, they happily live off the government teat, taking as much as they can from the society they openly say they are planning to destroy.)

I don't recall the Greeks, the Irish Catholics, the Italians, the Vietnamese or any other group of migrants - let alone "refugees" - openly admit to this or even secretly attempt to do so.

The other unique trait of this group no politician seemingly wants to mention is their blatant, undisguised propensity to threatening - and enacting - violence, even terminal violence, on anyone within or outside their group who dares to question their actions or clearly stated motives.

What's also interesting is the stone wall of silence, with never a word of condemnation, from what you assure us is the vast majority of 'moderates' within that group. The question is: are the vast majority really "moderate" and are terrorised into silence (see the paragraph above), or, are they not particularly unhappy at the thought of their adopted societies becoming clones of the societies they (supposedly) escaped from?

Judging by the number of so-called 'in family' "honour killings" and forced marriages (see last night's "4 Corners" programme) that continue to apparently occur within that particular group of immigrants to this and other Western countries, (in all too many cases, many years after they have settled in the West), I'm not as reassured as you seem to be by the answers that immediately come to my mind.

Which brings me to ask the question others have asked before me: given that we have stark, clear-cut examples staring us in the face that such immigration policies have been a disaster in the making in Europe, why in the world is our current government, egged on by the crazy One World Government loonies aka The Greens, coming out with policies that are encouraging more and more of these people to come here and live off generous government handouts long term after arriving here?

MTOW - well said. The point about migrants/refugees wanting to make a better life for themselves contrasted with those who "quite openly admit, even boast, that their aim is to change their adopted society - and EVERYONE in it - whether they like it or not, into the society that they (supposedly) were forced to escape from ..." particularly struck a chord with me (specially seeing I am not living in the land of my birth, but am privileged to live in Australia. We came here to escape personal danger and potential future danger for our sons, and to give our children better opportunities with our perception of the better life Australia offered).

Meanwhile, back on the ranch and back on the subject:

CASE TO ANSWER: Prosecutors called in to investigate Thomson report | News.com.au

Auditor-General slams government over bungled tender for Australia Network | News.com.au

The question has to be asked: If they can't handle a simple tender process then why are they in government?

Can't disagree with the decision to keep the broadcasting in the hands of the ABC but if their reason is to keep the Australian foreign "propaganda" arm safely within the arms of Governmental control then why not say it? And if that is the reason then it calls into question, once again, their honesty. And, again, if that is the reason then why was Krudd allowed to move to an open tender process in the first place?

Talk about breweries and piss-ups. :ugh:

There's not much they can handle. Remember that most Labor parliamentarians and their advisers have a very limited skill set - how to climb the greasy pole of party politics.

These skills aren't much good when the task is project management. There are public servants with such skills, but between them and the ministgers are the ministerial staff - invariably more greasy pole climbers with little understanding of business or of how normal society operates.

The Liberals suffer from the same problem, but less so, and there's just no hope for the Greens.

Not just a case of not being able to handle it, but wasting a load of taxpayers money to pay for their petty internal squabbles. I heard on the radio that the compensation to ANC was around $2million.

So, the Craig Thomson report hits the media.

I liked the comment by Barnaby Joyce; "So a thief takes the driving licence and credit card, and the thief, looking incredibly like Craig Thomson goes to this brothel; pays for the services and then drives back to Craig Thomson's house and replaces all the items where they were picked up from" (I paraphrase).

As someone once said "Pigs Arse".

And we will, over the next few days and weeks, be treated to the sight and sound of Jooliar defending this cockroach in order to keep her majority intact.

Ethics? :yuk:

What have ethics to do with this? We're talking about hundreds of fat salaries, lavish lifestyles, expense accounts and travel privileges, networks of influence and dependency, all at stake if Labor goes down.

Note Gillard's answer to Christopher Pyne's question in parliament:

"Do you have full confidence in Craig Thompson?"

Gillard, dissembler to the last, answers:

"The answer to the Minister's question is yes."

She doesn't want a sound byte to exist thaat says "I have full confidence in Thompson." becasuse she knows he's crooked.

As you say, sisemen, "Ethics?"

Gillard is beneath contempt.

And there you have the glaring point that you have completely MISSED. The one where you are talking about a small MINORITY of people in an ethnic group who have stated they want "their way or no way". Like all other immigrants, the vast majority not only integrate but also pay taxes, etc. Sure, they may dress differently but they get on with their lives and don't bother anyone else. I could say the same about the Vietnamese, or the Italians, or the Safa's, who all seem to set up their own little communities but don't actually interfere with other people's lives (although they might whine about it and want some change to suit their ideals. It does happen).

So what is the difference between that and the majority of Muslims who don't even pay attention to the nonsense spouted by those "extremists"? Or the difference between these "FundaMENTALists" and those of the Christian persuasion who believe that things like abortion and evolution are wrong and MUST be removed from the existence THEY want (you do have these people in Aus too, I can assure you)?

There is none, there is no difference. But since they, the FundaMENTALists, have managed to get normal, happy people cacking themselves over a threat that isn't there, you've let them actually win, they've beaten you because you see scary things around every corner because it's dressed differently.

Scary thought, ain't it.