You are here

Gillard is Rudd in drag; Abbott is Howard's protégé. It's 2007 take 2. I've already 'absentee' voted.

If Gillard is not a rehash of the hollow Rudd, who hoodwinked us into the false hope of the 2007 pork barrelling and spun that hollow 2020 Summit; Gillard's absence of maxims and deadlines for Australia's population/immigration targets only confirms voters ought to realistically presume more of the same.

Tony only wants to stop the boats. He is quite happy for the other 99% arriving by plane to keep coming.

Ordinary voters need to detox from this election bender. Only the political parties, their advertisers and their media allies stand to benefit. Like the pubs and clubs that own the pokies, they control the outcome and the punters lose.

Voters need to stop hoping things will improve under either LibLab party. After 21st August, we won't enter a new era. It will be more of the same. The media phasing will run to formula. First they'll flog reality TV labelled as 'Decision 2010', then there'll be celebration and paralysis by analysis, followed by a month of new government honeymoon hope, before inevitable criticism returns and the eggs start flying again. [I wish that bloke waiting in the Canberra café had been a better shot!]

If only voters for once would accept that after the election things do not improve either way. If voters vote non-LibLab for genuine change, there is a slither of hope that voters may get what they wish for - 'change'.

But who else is out there? With such a political vacuum, why are there so few choices, so few alternatives, so few leaders? The LibLab's have their oliogarchic system sown up with their donated millions providing campaign supremacy, their safe seats, their gerrymanders, the electoral system's prejudice against newcomers and small players, and the mainstream media bias allowing only the LibLabs their time in the sun.

So we cop the same old LibLab pendulous crap. In living memory is has been Holt > Gorton >McMahon> Whitlam > Fraser > Hawke > Keating > Howard > Rudd > Gillard... All LibLab. All like tired re-runs of M*A*S*H* once the ratings finish.

AttachmentSize
Image icon Kevin 07 let go.jpg10.8 KB

Comments

I have listened to both candidates - they talk about "sustainability" but neither of them have mentioned, at all, the concept of stopping Australia's population growth entirely. If you follow their speeches you can hear carefully steer very clear of the idea. They want Australia's population to grow forever.

They are aided by many pundits in the media who seem to think Australia's problems will be solved by a larger population. Oh no they're not arguing for perpetual growth. Just a little more growth and we can stop. Just a little more.

According to Peter Hunt, we are not currently having a real population debate!!

Unless we agree with his pro-growth, big business perspective, unless we confine ourselves to discussion of how we will grow (as opposed to if we want to grow), then we are really not having a debate.

This absurdistan view was recently promoted by Murdoch's News Limited Weekly Times as

"Time for population debate" August 16, 2010, an opinion article by Peter Hunt, who begins his propaganda with, "It is time to start genuine debate about the Big Australia policy."

Does Mr Hunt think we are all stupid?

Or is his job really selling real estate?

This link discusses parties that are opposed to mass migration (our main source of population growth) and those that favour it or are ambivalent.

www.independentaustralian.com.au/node/73

The Stable Population Party of Australia, which comes with no nationalistic baggage, was unable to stand under its party name, because Julia Gillard called the election a few days before it would have qualified. However, if you live in NSW, you can vote for Senate Group T to get the same people and policies. If you vote 1 for them above the line, their preferences put the major parties last.

Australians mindful of the LibLab electoral platforms and not content with them ought to vote alternatively - outside the LibLab square so to speak.

Informal voting is counterproductive in all respects, since its sends no voter message to future government - supportive or dismissive.

At least voting for an alternative, there is a message sent.
But then if you vote LibLab you must be resolutely happy with LibLab solutions for Australia.

NB. Personally I do not see how preferencing Australian cultural values in an Australian election could be construed to be 'nationalistic baggage', unless one has a foreign agenda.