Kangal Presents Tiger Meets Yellowman(kangal)1986
Was free love really so free?
Have you ever heard of the Oneida Community? It was founded in the 1840s by the American John Humphrey Noyes.
Noyes started out as a theologian. He recognised that the Bible was strong on marriage, but thought that believers were called upon to live in a "resurrection state", i.e. to live posthumously, as if in the afterlife. And in the afterlife there were no laws regarding marriage or divorce. Instead, there was openness and service to all, equally.
Noyes therefore held that believers should reject monogamous marriage and replace it with pantogamy, in which there would be no "selfish possession" when it came to sexual relations. As the Oneida Handbook put it,
It seems that if you were an American radical in the 1830s you still had to find justification for your views in the Bible. But this wasn't Noyes's only source of authority. He mixed the Bible with scientism - his aim was to achieve "scientific" forms of social organisation (rather than "sentimental" ones).
And he often sounded something like a radical left-liberal, believing in feminism, freedom, equality and progress to human perfection.
It was Noyes who coined the term "free love" to denote the abolition of marriage and its replacement by non-possessive, multiple sexual relationships. He founded a community of several hundred people on this basis that lasted for 30 years. So how did it work out in practice?
The commune
The commune had a conception of itself as being "free, open and democratic," as "enlightened," and as practising "sexual freedom".
It also saw itself as feminist, with women there pioneering the wearing of pants and working alongside the men:
But the "free love" practised at Oneida was in reality not so free and not so loving. The community was highly regulated, with "a complex bureaucracy of 27 standing committees and 48 administrative sections" for just 300 people.
One of these committees, headed by Noyes himself, decided who would be allowed to embark on a sexual relationship. There was a principle of Ascending Fellowship, which meant that older members of the community were paired up with younger members. This meant that Noyes and a few of the other older men were paired up with very young girls (twelve or thirteen years old). Noyes at times used his power to determine relationships to maintain control over the community.
So relationships weren't really so free. And there were limitations on love as well. Couples weren't supposed to get too attached to each other, as this was thought to be too exclusive and detrimental to a commitment to the community. It was condemned as "idolatrous worship".
Nor was there much opportunity for maternal or paternal love. In the early years of the community, Noyes sought to prevent children being born. Men were supposed to practise "continence" as a form of birth control (i.e. withdrawal). Later on, Noyes became interested in the science of eugenics. He set up another committee, with himself at the head, to decide on applications from those wishing to conceive.
The children born from this system of stirpiculture were allowed to stay with their mothers, for breastfeeding purposes, for 15 months. Afterwards, they were removed to be raised communally by those considered expert at the job. The children were rotated at night between different members of the community according to a principle of "non-attachment".
So there was sex and work but a repression of marital love and maternal love. In this, the Oneida communists (a term they used themselves) were strikingly similar to later radical moderns. I'm reminded of the Spanish anarchists of the 1930s who passed a resolution stating that for those comrades suffering from "the sickness of love ... a change of commune will be recommended". Alexandra Kollontai, the Russian Bolshevik of the 1920s, wrote similarly that love was,
For those who wish to control or manage people according to a perfectionist ideology, love and marriage will often be looked on as a threat - as binding people to each other and creating independent sources of loyalty and commitment.
It's interesting too that Noyes promoted mediocrity as best suited to life in an egalitarian commune:
How did it end?
Two factors led to the demise of the Oneida community. First, there were younger men who did not accept that the older men should have the rights over the younger women. So an oppositional faction to Noyes emerged.
Second, when the women were finally allowed to have children, they then started to want to marry for the purposes of security. There is possibly an insight into the nature of women here. When women are young and childless they are possibly more accepting of acting from sexual impulse alone. But when they have young children, the instinct for the security provided by a husband is at its strongest. Women at this point in their life can develop the qualities associated with the "loving wife and mother".
Perhaps that's one reason I'm troubled by the advent in Australia of paid maternity schemes. At just the time that a woman might look to her husband for security and develop the qualities in herself that are likely to ground a lifelong marriage, the government steps in to provide security instead.
Anyway, an ageing Noyes did finally concede and allowed the women to marry. By the 1880s, the Oneida experiment went into decline.
There are many conclusions to be drawn from the Oneida Community. But perhaps one of the most significant is that attacking traditional marriage is unlikely to lead to a "sexual utopia" in which people freely and equally exchange partners.
At Oneida, in spite of the idealism and the rhetoric about free love, once the traditional restraints were gone the older men used their power in the community to win sexual access for themselves to very young women (to girls). They were in effect reverting to the customs of more primitive societies: they were enacting a civilisational regress rather than a progress.
Whatever its faults, traditional marriage is more egalitarian than the alternatives (allowing everyone a strong chance to partner, to have a sexual relationship and to bear children); it avoids generational conflict (in which fathers and sons are set against each other in competition for women); it is pro-natalist (as the emphasis is not on keeping all women available for sexual purposes); it provides protection for women from more primitive customs of pairing girls with much older men; and it also forms an independent unit of society that helps to prevent total power over individuals by those governing society.
Noyes started out as a theologian. He recognised that the Bible was strong on marriage, but thought that believers were called upon to live in a "resurrection state", i.e. to live posthumously, as if in the afterlife. And in the afterlife there were no laws regarding marriage or divorce. Instead, there was openness and service to all, equally. Noyes therefore held that believers should reject monogamous marriage and replace it with pantogamy, in which there would be no "selfish possession" when it came to sexual relations. As the Oneida Handbook put it,
In the resurrection, marriage was to be superseded by universal unity ... We have thus far carefully traced the doctrine of Christ and Paul on the subject of marriage ... We have found them not in favor of divorce, and not polygamists, but pressing toward the cessation of marriage itself ...
pantogamy ... recognizes the continued existence of the sexual relation, but excludes ownership, and replaces human beings where they were as children - in friendship and freedom, without selfish possession.
... in that posthumous state which we are taught to pray for and expect on earth, the relation of the sexes will be that described in Christ's prayer - "that they may all be one, even as I and my Father are one" - which we call pantogamy.
It seems that if you were an American radical in the 1830s you still had to find justification for your views in the Bible. But this wasn't Noyes's only source of authority. He mixed the Bible with scientism - his aim was to achieve "scientific" forms of social organisation (rather than "sentimental" ones).
And he often sounded something like a radical left-liberal, believing in feminism, freedom, equality and progress to human perfection.
It was Noyes who coined the term "free love" to denote the abolition of marriage and its replacement by non-possessive, multiple sexual relationships. He founded a community of several hundred people on this basis that lasted for 30 years. So how did it work out in practice?
The commune
The commune had a conception of itself as being "free, open and democratic," as "enlightened," and as practising "sexual freedom".
It also saw itself as feminist, with women there pioneering the wearing of pants and working alongside the men:
Always concerned for the plight of women in modern society, under Noyes' belief in the equality of the sexes, the group went in for communal cooking and housekeeping as well as group farming, the men and women sharing in all the work.
But the "free love" practised at Oneida was in reality not so free and not so loving. The community was highly regulated, with "a complex bureaucracy of 27 standing committees and 48 administrative sections" for just 300 people.
One of these committees, headed by Noyes himself, decided who would be allowed to embark on a sexual relationship. There was a principle of Ascending Fellowship, which meant that older members of the community were paired up with younger members. This meant that Noyes and a few of the other older men were paired up with very young girls (twelve or thirteen years old). Noyes at times used his power to determine relationships to maintain control over the community.
So relationships weren't really so free. And there were limitations on love as well. Couples weren't supposed to get too attached to each other, as this was thought to be too exclusive and detrimental to a commitment to the community. It was condemned as "idolatrous worship".
Nor was there much opportunity for maternal or paternal love. In the early years of the community, Noyes sought to prevent children being born. Men were supposed to practise "continence" as a form of birth control (i.e. withdrawal). Later on, Noyes became interested in the science of eugenics. He set up another committee, with himself at the head, to decide on applications from those wishing to conceive.
The children born from this system of stirpiculture were allowed to stay with their mothers, for breastfeeding purposes, for 15 months. Afterwards, they were removed to be raised communally by those considered expert at the job. The children were rotated at night between different members of the community according to a principle of "non-attachment".
So there was sex and work but a repression of marital love and maternal love. In this, the Oneida communists (a term they used themselves) were strikingly similar to later radical moderns. I'm reminded of the Spanish anarchists of the 1930s who passed a resolution stating that for those comrades suffering from "the sickness of love ... a change of commune will be recommended". Alexandra Kollontai, the Russian Bolshevik of the 1920s, wrote similarly that love was,
an expenditure of precious time and energy ... utterly worthless ... We, the women of the past generation, did not yet understand how to be free. The whole thing was an absolutely incredible squandering of our mental energy, a diminution of our labour power.
It is certainly true that we ... were able to understand that love was not the main goal of our life and that we knew how to place work at its center...
For those who wish to control or manage people according to a perfectionist ideology, love and marriage will often be looked on as a threat - as binding people to each other and creating independent sources of loyalty and commitment.
It's interesting too that Noyes promoted mediocrity as best suited to life in an egalitarian commune:
We must all be mediocre and avoid abnormal or excessive development in the individual, since forms of excellence are at the expense of other individuals who are less endowed.
How did it end?
Two factors led to the demise of the Oneida community. First, there were younger men who did not accept that the older men should have the rights over the younger women. So an oppositional faction to Noyes emerged.
Second, when the women were finally allowed to have children, they then started to want to marry for the purposes of security. There is possibly an insight into the nature of women here. When women are young and childless they are possibly more accepting of acting from sexual impulse alone. But when they have young children, the instinct for the security provided by a husband is at its strongest. Women at this point in their life can develop the qualities associated with the "loving wife and mother".
Perhaps that's one reason I'm troubled by the advent in Australia of paid maternity schemes. At just the time that a woman might look to her husband for security and develop the qualities in herself that are likely to ground a lifelong marriage, the government steps in to provide security instead.
Anyway, an ageing Noyes did finally concede and allowed the women to marry. By the 1880s, the Oneida experiment went into decline.
There are many conclusions to be drawn from the Oneida Community. But perhaps one of the most significant is that attacking traditional marriage is unlikely to lead to a "sexual utopia" in which people freely and equally exchange partners.
At Oneida, in spite of the idealism and the rhetoric about free love, once the traditional restraints were gone the older men used their power in the community to win sexual access for themselves to very young women (to girls). They were in effect reverting to the customs of more primitive societies: they were enacting a civilisational regress rather than a progress.
Whatever its faults, traditional marriage is more egalitarian than the alternatives (allowing everyone a strong chance to partner, to have a sexual relationship and to bear children); it avoids generational conflict (in which fathers and sons are set against each other in competition for women); it is pro-natalist (as the emphasis is not on keeping all women available for sexual purposes); it provides protection for women from more primitive customs of pairing girls with much older men; and it also forms an independent unit of society that helps to prevent total power over individuals by those governing society.
Yellowman - Blueberry Hill
This one is on the difficult to find Kangal label, one of the very few albums i know that exist on that label. Any help with other records is very appreciated.
Eniko Mihalik: Going Viral
Check out the full interactive video, "Eniko," by Barnaby Roper
HERE at ShowStudio.
(We promise that it will be worth your time.)
The Wild Apache
Super Cat - The Struggle Continues (Columbia)
The Good, The Bad, The Ugly & The Crazy (Wild Apache)
Super Cat - Don Dada (Wild Apache)
Cabin Stabin (Wild Apache)
Super Cat - Sweets For My Sweet
Super Cat - Boops! (Skengdon)
Si Boops Deh! (Techniques)
The Good, The Bad, The Ugly & The Crazy (Wild Apache)
Super Cat - Don Dada (Wild Apache)
Cabin Stabin (Wild Apache)
Super Cat - Sweets For My Sweet
Super Cat - Boops! (Skengdon)
Si Boops Deh! (Techniques)
News from Down Under.
Lots of interesting power pop developments coming out of Australia lately, and here are the highlights:
* Michael Carpenter. If the group of artists we feature on this site who continually work together on different projects can be called the Australian Power Pop Mafia, then Michael Carpenter is The Godfather. And Don MC is back with a couple of projects.
First up is the O'Neders, a gathering of Carpenter and like-minded power poppers who came together to record a live album of power pop covers from contemporary artists such as Sloan, Fountains of Wayne, Teenage Fanclub, Jellyfish, Matthew Sweet as well as classics from The Beatles, Big Star, The Byrds and The Who among others. It's a real hoot and a real treat and you can listen and buy the whole shebang at Bandcamp. Titled That Thing We Done, it's a real wonder. (Unfortunately the CDR version is sold out, so you'll have to digital on this one).
MC is also hard at work on his ultimate Cuban Heels project. You may recall the pair of EPs he's put out in the last couple of years with this crew, and now it's all coming together with The Incomplete Cuban Heels, a collection of the 2 EPs plus a bunch of new tracks. Like other artists these days, he's offering a "buy-in" of sorts to help finance the project and has two levels of support you can give with plenty of goodies available for each. Get all the details at his site.
* The Sunshine Ponies. You probably haven't heard of the band name, but I'm sure you're familiar with the players. This is the aforementioned Aussie Power Pop Mafia in its full glory, as Popboomerang honchos Scott Thurling and Sarah Halligan have called in the gang to record an album set to their love poetry, and in addition to Mr. Carpenter, AbPow faves like Bryan Estepa, Adrian Whitehead, Tim Reid, Kelly's Heels and Danna & The Changes are on board to provide the music and voices for these song-poems. Like the O'Neders project above, you can hear and buy it all at Bandcamp.
* Michael Carpenter. If the group of artists we feature on this site who continually work together on different projects can be called the Australian Power Pop Mafia, then Michael Carpenter is The Godfather. And Don MC is back with a couple of projects.
First up is the O'Neders, a gathering of Carpenter and like-minded power poppers who came together to record a live album of power pop covers from contemporary artists such as Sloan, Fountains of Wayne, Teenage Fanclub, Jellyfish, Matthew Sweet as well as classics from The Beatles, Big Star, The Byrds and The Who among others. It's a real hoot and a real treat and you can listen and buy the whole shebang at Bandcamp. Titled That Thing We Done, it's a real wonder. (Unfortunately the CDR version is sold out, so you'll have to digital on this one).
MC is also hard at work on his ultimate Cuban Heels project. You may recall the pair of EPs he's put out in the last couple of years with this crew, and now it's all coming together with The Incomplete Cuban Heels, a collection of the 2 EPs plus a bunch of new tracks. Like other artists these days, he's offering a "buy-in" of sorts to help finance the project and has two levels of support you can give with plenty of goodies available for each. Get all the details at his site.
* The Sunshine Ponies. You probably haven't heard of the band name, but I'm sure you're familiar with the players. This is the aforementioned Aussie Power Pop Mafia in its full glory, as Popboomerang honchos Scott Thurling and Sarah Halligan have called in the gang to record an album set to their love poetry, and in addition to Mr. Carpenter, AbPow faves like Bryan Estepa, Adrian Whitehead, Tim Reid, Kelly's Heels and Danna & The Changes are on board to provide the music and voices for these song-poems. Like the O'Neders project above, you can hear and buy it all at Bandcamp.
Pauline Van der Cruysse: Rocker Girl
"Wild Thing"
Vogue Germany // August 2010
Ph: Thomas Schenk // Stylists: Nicola Knels & Lynn Schmidt
Heat
Contributed by RiddimwizeAs the previous post, also an UK production, this one is from Gussie P.
Top Cat - Cat O Nine Tales
Top Cat born as Anthony (Tony) Codrington in Manchester/UK into a Jamaican family, Top Cat came to test his skills on the microphone when he was visiting his cousins in Jamaica as a teen in the late 1970s. Soon he started kicking deejay lyrics on various UK soundsystems, like Sledge Hammer and Viking, and turned up at Sir Coxson Sound in 1989, where he got to know his long-time mic partner Tenor Fly. When the jungle hype came up, at first Top Cat was not exactly pleased by the fact that his late 1980s dancehall tune "Love Mi Sess" got bootleg remix treatments, but in 1994 he set up his own jungle label 9 Lives Records, where he released various remixes of his old dancehall songs as well as new material. (Source: discogs.com)
Constance Jablonski: Smile
"Dress for Success" (Selected Images)
Vogue Nippon // September 2010
Ph. Andreas Sjodin // Stylist: Sabino Pantone
Ph. Andreas Sjodin // Stylist: Sabino Pantone
Is the UK a country or a company?
David Cameron has shown his hand early. The British "Conservative" PM has declared that he wants to be at the forefront of international efforts to get Turkey into the European Union.
That's a radical policy. There are 72 million Turks, nearly all Muslim, who will end up with the right to move to the UK if Turkey is allowed to join. Turkey is not historically a part of the West, so it will mean establishing a precedent of Western countries dissolving themselves in a federation with non-Western ones.
Why would Cameron want to do this? Liberals like Cameron see society as being made up of millions of autonomous wills. But how can a society of competing wills be harmoniously regulated? The answer of right-liberals is that the hidden hand of the free market can regulate our self-directed purposes for the overall good of society.
So there is a focus on Economic Man and his activities in the free market - as this is what is thought to successfully harmonise individual "freedom" (i.e. autonomy).
What becomes authoritative, as a principle of social administration, are market outcomes. Countries are governed as if they were companies.
So back to the right-liberal Cameron. His first reason for wanting Turkey to join the EU? He thinks it will be good for the economy:
And who does Cameron think opposes Turkish membership? Again, he sees things along economic lines. He imagines that the opposition comes from "protectionists" who fear free trade:
He is blind to the idea that the UK might exist for purposes other than trade. Questions of culture, of religion, of tradition, of distinct nations of people - all these are reduced to possible impediments to free trade that must not be allowed to interfere with running society along "rational" market lines.
And so we get to see the passionate side of Cameron, the Cameron who is angered by the idea that pesky issues of culture and civilisation might get in the way of economic objectives:
At least Cameron has shown decisively, early in his Prime Ministership, that he is a radical right-liberal rather than a genuine conservative. This must surely make it clear to the base of the Conservative Party that they must either rebel against the party leadership or else leave and build up another party or another political movement.
I don't want to always be presenting the views of those who betray. So I'll finish by linking to someone I don't know much about, except that he is a Conservative Party MEP who has written a good reply to Cameron: If Turkey joins the EU, we should leave. Roger Helmer is proof that it's possible to have a background in business and still put national sovereignty first.
That's a radical policy. There are 72 million Turks, nearly all Muslim, who will end up with the right to move to the UK if Turkey is allowed to join. Turkey is not historically a part of the West, so it will mean establishing a precedent of Western countries dissolving themselves in a federation with non-Western ones.
Why would Cameron want to do this? Liberals like Cameron see society as being made up of millions of autonomous wills. But how can a society of competing wills be harmoniously regulated? The answer of right-liberals is that the hidden hand of the free market can regulate our self-directed purposes for the overall good of society.
So there is a focus on Economic Man and his activities in the free market - as this is what is thought to successfully harmonise individual "freedom" (i.e. autonomy).
What becomes authoritative, as a principle of social administration, are market outcomes. Countries are governed as if they were companies.
So back to the right-liberal Cameron. His first reason for wanting Turkey to join the EU? He thinks it will be good for the economy:
I ask myself this: which European country grew at 11% at the start of this year? Which European country will be the second fastest growing economy in the world by 2017? Which country in Europe has more young people than any of the 27 countries of the European Union? Which country in Europe is our number one manufacturer of televisions and second only to China in the world in construction and in contracting?...
That is the first reason I am here today and it is why I have chosen to come to TOBB, right in the heart of the Turkish business community.
And who does Cameron think opposes Turkish membership? Again, he sees things along economic lines. He imagines that the opposition comes from "protectionists" who fear free trade:
Every generation has to make the argument for free trade all over again and this generation will be no different. As we build our economic relationship there are some who fear the growth of a country like Turkey, who want to retreat and cut themselves off from the rest of the world. They just don’t get it...
So let me tell you what we are going to do to beat the protectionists. We are going to work harder than ever before to break down those barriers to trade that still exist, to cut the global red tape, like by streamlining customs bureaucracy and to work towards completing the trade round that could add $170 billion to the world economy...
We are welcoming new business to Britain. And we are delighted that so many Turkish people are visiting, studying, and doing business so successfully in the United Kingdom.
Today the value of our trade is over $9 billion a year. I want us to double this over the next five years. We cannot let the protectionists win the argument.
He is blind to the idea that the UK might exist for purposes other than trade. Questions of culture, of religion, of tradition, of distinct nations of people - all these are reduced to possible impediments to free trade that must not be allowed to interfere with running society along "rational" market lines.
And so we get to see the passionate side of Cameron, the Cameron who is angered by the idea that pesky issues of culture and civilisation might get in the way of economic objectives:
it makes me angry that your progress towards EU membership can be frustrated in the way that it has been...
I will remain your strongest possible advocate for EU membership and for greater influence at the top table of European diplomacy. This is something I feel very strongly and very passionately about. Together I want us to pave the road from Ankara to Brussels.
At least Cameron has shown decisively, early in his Prime Ministership, that he is a radical right-liberal rather than a genuine conservative. This must surely make it clear to the base of the Conservative Party that they must either rebel against the party leadership or else leave and build up another party or another political movement.
I don't want to always be presenting the views of those who betray. So I'll finish by linking to someone I don't know much about, except that he is a Conservative Party MEP who has written a good reply to Cameron: If Turkey joins the EU, we should leave. Roger Helmer is proof that it's possible to have a background in business and still put national sovereignty first.
New releases A-Hoy!
NYC's Greg Hoy has been a bit of a pop chameleon over the years, from his traditional power pop days in his band Hoy to the more modern rock and harder rock sensibilities found in his solo career. And now with a pair of new releases, Hoy continues genre-hopping.
First up is Spouses of the Lowly, a concept album of sorts about temptation and infidelity that itself boasts many different pop styles. For example, opener "Spouse of the Lowly" (and the album-ending bookend title track) is expert pop noir, "Souvenir" dabbles in electro-pop, and "Jesus' Son" mixes in some blues in support of a "Bo Diddley" backbeat. Elsewhere, "TV Dinner" almost comes off as an Americanized Fratellis and "Temptation Town" is gentle folk-rock. But the standout here is "Highway 101", a casual 70s SoCal sounding tune that splits the difference between Blues Image and "Rosalita"-era Springsteen. This is one disc where no two songs sound the same, and that's a good thing.
CD Baby | MySpace | iTunes | Listen/buy at Bandcamp
Hoy's other new release Rock and Roll is a straight-up genre exercise, the genre being 50s/early 60s rock and rockbilly a la Buddy Holly, Carl Perkins and early Elvis, and it's a hoot. The title track is pure Holly, "I'm Epic Curious" swings, "(She Gonna) Firebomb the Track" is a first-class rave-up and you can almost hear a little early Dylan in "She's My Cocaine". A record that's fun to listen to, and that sounds like it was fun to make - what rock and roll is all about.
CD Baby | iTunes | eMusic | listen/buy at Bandcamp
First up is Spouses of the Lowly, a concept album of sorts about temptation and infidelity that itself boasts many different pop styles. For example, opener "Spouse of the Lowly" (and the album-ending bookend title track) is expert pop noir, "Souvenir" dabbles in electro-pop, and "Jesus' Son" mixes in some blues in support of a "Bo Diddley" backbeat. Elsewhere, "TV Dinner" almost comes off as an Americanized Fratellis and "Temptation Town" is gentle folk-rock. But the standout here is "Highway 101", a casual 70s SoCal sounding tune that splits the difference between Blues Image and "Rosalita"-era Springsteen. This is one disc where no two songs sound the same, and that's a good thing.CD Baby | MySpace | iTunes | Listen/buy at Bandcamp
Hoy's other new release Rock and Roll is a straight-up genre exercise, the genre being 50s/early 60s rock and rockbilly a la Buddy Holly, Carl Perkins and early Elvis, and it's a hoot. The title track is pure Holly, "I'm Epic Curious" swings, "(She Gonna) Firebomb the Track" is a first-class rave-up and you can almost hear a little early Dylan in "She's My Cocaine". A record that's fun to listen to, and that sounds like it was fun to make - what rock and roll is all about.CD Baby | iTunes | eMusic | listen/buy at Bandcamp
Renata Sozzi: Strength in Numbers
United Colors of Benetton Fall/Winter 2010 Campaign
Ph: Josh Olins // Stylist: Clare Richardson
Images courtesy of The Fashionisto
Lindsey Wixson: Slight Blush
Jill Stuart Beauty FW10 Campaign // Behind-the-Scenes Video
Ph. Satoshi Saikusa
Video courtesy of Jill Stuart Beauty
Tim Colebatch: why can't we keep the public out of it?
Tim Colebatch has written a strikingly awful column for today's Age.
He's upset that public opinion has forced a debate on immigration during the election campaign. He wants the two major parties to return to a bipartisan policy of ignoring what Australians think about the issue.
He looks back nostalgically to Menzies (a Liberal PM in the 1950s and 60s):
According to Colebatch, the role of the Australian public is to "get used to" what politicians decide amongst themselves.
And there's more. Colebatch thinks John Howard got things right as Liberal PM:
The right-liberal mind at work again. If it's cheaper to bring in overseas workers than to train Australians then it's considered "sensible" to do so.
Colebatch ends with this plea:
Colebatch is telling several hundred thousand readers that their opinion on something as basic as immigration policy should simply not matter - that the Liberal and Labor Parties should keep the policy out of public reach.
Economists don't have to follow an orthodox right-liberalism as Colebatch does. Terry McCrann, for instance, has written a column questioning the economic need for large-scale migration. He is concerned that if the Chinese boom (on which our mining exports depend) falters that the Australian economy doesn't have a fall back with which to provide employment for the many hundreds of thousands of immigrants entering the country:
He also points out the flaw in the idea that such high levels of immigration will pay for the welfare costs of an ageing population:
He's upset that public opinion has forced a debate on immigration during the election campaign. He wants the two major parties to return to a bipartisan policy of ignoring what Australians think about the issue.
He looks back nostalgically to Menzies (a Liberal PM in the 1950s and 60s):
Last week, pollster Gary Morgan pulled out some old polls - like, really old. In 1952, when the postwar immigration program was starting to transform Australia from an Anglo-Irish nation into a diverse one, his dad, Roy Morgan, found 52 per cent of Australians wanted the immigration intake reduced - while only 43 per cent wanted to maintain or increase it.
Did prime minister Robert Menzies change the policy to satisfy its opponents? No, he kept immigration rolling, and gradually Australians got used to it...
Why didn't Menzies buckle? Because the Labor opposition supported the policy, which it had initiated in 1947. ''My father used to send the results to both Menzies and Arthur Calwell (then Labor's deputy leader),'' Gary Morgan recalls. ''They were at one on this, so there was no political issue.''
According to Colebatch, the role of the Australian public is to "get used to" what politicians decide amongst themselves.
And there's more. Colebatch thinks John Howard got things right as Liberal PM:
The Howard government was the author of the high-immigration policy that Howard's heirs are now campaigning against. It saw that Australia would need a lot more skilled workers, and that it was cheaper to attract migrants with the skills than to train Australians in the numbers needed.
First, after an initial cut to the official migration program, it steadily lifted it from 67,100 to 158,630 in a decade. Second, in 2001 it made a momentous change by allowing foreign students with skills to stay here permanently if they could line up a job after graduating. Third, it introduced section 457 visas to allow businesses to bring in overseas workers in areas of skills shortages.
These were sensible moves...
The right-liberal mind at work again. If it's cheaper to bring in overseas workers than to train Australians then it's considered "sensible" to do so.
Colebatch ends with this plea:
Immigration is one of Australia's great success stories. It's a bipartisan success story. Why can't we keep it that way?
Colebatch is telling several hundred thousand readers that their opinion on something as basic as immigration policy should simply not matter - that the Liberal and Labor Parties should keep the policy out of public reach.
Economists don't have to follow an orthodox right-liberalism as Colebatch does. Terry McCrann, for instance, has written a column questioning the economic need for large-scale migration. He is concerned that if the Chinese boom (on which our mining exports depend) falters that the Australian economy doesn't have a fall back with which to provide employment for the many hundreds of thousands of immigrants entering the country:
What if we run a 250,000-plus annual immigration intake and the China boom ends? We pour people into an ever bigger Australia, and we don't get even the indirect jobs from a resources boom because we don't get the resources boom jobs in the first place?
He also points out the flaw in the idea that such high levels of immigration will pay for the welfare costs of an ageing population:
At core the new "populate or our future fortunes will perish" cry is the ultimate national pyramid scheme. We need to get to 36 -- or 50? -- million, to have the taxpaying workforce to support the now ageing baby-boomers. Beware of a Japanese-style population implosion!
Oh yeah? And when all those younger new arrivals start to age, we will presumably then need to move to 72 -- or 100 -- million, to have a sufficiently large taxpaying workforce to support them. Just as every boom busts, even our China one will; the laws of arithmetic always topple even the most elegant pyramid scheme.
Dancehall Bubblers
Compilation with Carl Meeks, Johnny P, Skullman, ...The album is produced by the Famous Team, someone knows who these famous guys are?
This post was contributed by Riddimwize.
Raggamuffin Ladies
Mixtape by Viktorious1. Sister Nancy- Only Woman DJ With Degree
2. Lady Ann - A Wa Do Men
3. Sophia George - Lazy Body
4. Lady Ann - Feminine Gender
5. Shelly Thunder - Kuff
6. Lady Saw - Sex
7. Judy & Bubbles - Life Nuh Fair
8. Tracey Niceness & Chris Wayne - Raggamuffin Love
9. Lady English & Miss Linda - Guys You Can´t Do What You Want To
10. Sister Charmaine & Peter Metro - Dibi Dibi Girl
11. Carla Marshall - Rent A Buddy
12. Lady G - Nuff Respect
13. Deborahe Glasgow - Telephone Love
14. Deborahe Glasgow - Champion Lover
15. Yvonne Saw - Cycle Shorts A Lick
16. Lady Patra - Lady Patra Property
17. Lady Patra - Big Chat
18. Lady G & Sanchez - Half My Age
19. Lady Shabba - One Minute Ruks
20. Lady Saw - If Him Lef
21. Lady P & Johnny P - Nothing Nah Gwan Fi Yu
22. Sister Carol - Remember When
23. Lady English & Sister Linda - Show Me Respect
24. Tanya Stephens - Big Ninja Bike
25. Sweet C - Love The Flex
26. Lady G & Sugar Minott (R.I.P) - A Whole Heap A Man
27. Sister Nancy - Boom Chaka laka
Eniko Mihalik: Studio 54
"Sortilége" (Selected Images)
Ph. Miguel Reveriego // Stylist: Capucine Safyurtlu
Scanned by elsaskywalker at The Fashion Spot
Getting it wrong on the family
The Liberal Party does seem better at the moment than Labor on issues of immigration and population policy. That might be enough of a reason to give them our preferences.
But there is still much to dislike about the Libs. Take, for instance, their family policy. Tony Abbott wants to introduce a much more ambitious paid maternity scheme than the Labor Party. It would give mothers six months maternity leave funded by the Government at full replacement pay of up to $150,000.
Now I know that many of my own readers will benefit financially from this. What I'm about to write might not be a popular thing to point out.
But the purpose of such paid maternity leave schemes is not really to help out families. It is to integrate women into the paid workforce and to make women more independent of men.
In the Liberal Party's own policy document it is stated that,
It's that right-liberal obsession with Economic Man again. Women are to be measured by their labour force productivity. Our lives are to be organised not around families but around workforce participation. Women are to have time off to create future units of labour.
And what about the place of men within family life? Up to now, a woman did at least still need the support of a stable male provider during the period of her life when she was pregnant and looking after babies. Now it is the state which is to take over that role. The state is to guarantee a woman's income during this period of her life.
What effect is this likely to have? No doubt there will still be some women who will look to men to provide the "dual income" effect. But there will be other women who will feel less need to partner with men who are the stable provider types. And there will be more women who will think it viable to go it alone.
And will men have the same motivation to work if their efforts are less necessary for the financial security of their families?
Another effect: once family life is organised through the state, the state can then dictate patterns of parenting. The state can, for instance, decree that child care must be carried out on a unisex basis, with no distinction between the role of mothers and fathers, with each having to take the same amount of leave to perform the same duties.
It is not wise for the state to (artificially) make the male role within the family an optional rather than a necessary one. This might in the short term seem appealing to women as a promise of independence. But the longer term effect will be to undermine stable male commitments to both family and work.
There are better ways for governments to support families, such as tax breaks for families with children.
But there is still much to dislike about the Libs. Take, for instance, their family policy. Tony Abbott wants to introduce a much more ambitious paid maternity scheme than the Labor Party. It would give mothers six months maternity leave funded by the Government at full replacement pay of up to $150,000.
Now I know that many of my own readers will benefit financially from this. What I'm about to write might not be a popular thing to point out.
But the purpose of such paid maternity leave schemes is not really to help out families. It is to integrate women into the paid workforce and to make women more independent of men.
In the Liberal Party's own policy document it is stated that,
The Coalition’s scheme will signal to the community that taking time out of the workforce to care for children is a normal part of the work-life cycle of parents.
It would also help promote increased female workforce participation because it creates a financial incentive for women to be engaged in paid work prior to childbirth and to return to the workforce after their period of leave. Greater female workforce participation will have positive impacts on the individual, families and society at large.
An effective paid parental leave scheme tackles head on the need to improve population, participation, and productivity – three key ingredients for stronger economic growth.
Australia should not go down the path of some Western countries where birth rates have fallen well below replacement levels. Today’s children are tomorrow’s workforce ...
Female participation in the workforce is important for our economic future as well as a robust birth rate. A study by Goldman Sachs published in November last year forecasts that Australia’s income would rise by up to 11 per cent if women’s workforce participation matched that of men. There is plenty of scope for improvement. According to the Productivity Commission, workforce participation by Australian women falls by a greater amount than for women in other OECD countries during child bearing years. Australia languishes 23rd out of 29 OECD countries in workforce participation rates of women aged 22-44 years of age.
The Coalition’s Paid Parental Leave policy could significantly ease re-entry to the workforce and encourage women to enter the job market in the first place. The Productivity Commission finds that longer parental leave (of six months or more) is likely to stimulate greater lifetime female workforce attachment. ("Paid Parental Leave: A New Approach" p.5)
It's that right-liberal obsession with Economic Man again. Women are to be measured by their labour force productivity. Our lives are to be organised not around families but around workforce participation. Women are to have time off to create future units of labour.
And what about the place of men within family life? Up to now, a woman did at least still need the support of a stable male provider during the period of her life when she was pregnant and looking after babies. Now it is the state which is to take over that role. The state is to guarantee a woman's income during this period of her life.
What effect is this likely to have? No doubt there will still be some women who will look to men to provide the "dual income" effect. But there will be other women who will feel less need to partner with men who are the stable provider types. And there will be more women who will think it viable to go it alone.
And will men have the same motivation to work if their efforts are less necessary for the financial security of their families?
Another effect: once family life is organised through the state, the state can then dictate patterns of parenting. The state can, for instance, decree that child care must be carried out on a unisex basis, with no distinction between the role of mothers and fathers, with each having to take the same amount of leave to perform the same duties.
It is not wise for the state to (artificially) make the male role within the family an optional rather than a necessary one. This might in the short term seem appealing to women as a promise of independence. But the longer term effect will be to undermine stable male commitments to both family and work.
There are better ways for governments to support families, such as tax breaks for families with children.
A breakthrough in Liberal policy?
Just what does the Liberal Party stand for when it comes to immigration?
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:
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:
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.)
Something better
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:
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:
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:
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.
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.)
Something better
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.
Nitty Gritty - Good Morning Teacher !
Jah In The Family (Blacker Dread)
General Penitentiary (Black Victory 1987)Thanks a lot for these Nitty Gritty donations Johan. Well appreciaded.
A good moment to list the other Nitty Gritty albums posted earlier on the blog:
Nitty Gritty & King Kong - Musical Confrontation (Jammys)
Nitty Gritty & Tenor Saw - With A Lot Of Signs (Black Roots)
Nitty Gritty & Tenor Saw - 17 North Parade (Powerhouse)
Nitty Gritty - Nitty Gritty (Music Master)
Nitty Gritty - Turbo Charged (Jammys)
Nitty Gritty - Trails And Crosses (Jammys)
Coco Tea - Come Again
One of Coco Tea's best albums by my opinion. This one is on Jammy's from 1987 with classic riddims ! How comes this wasn't yet on the blog ???
Say thanks to Johan for his contributions.
Tenor Saw meets Don Angelo
A massive thanks to Johan for this big contribution ! Respect everytime.
The mythical 'Golden hen' Tenor saw and Don Angelo produced by Keith Gorgan Wignal.
Sugar Minott & Youth Promotion
This one's dedicated to the great Lincoln 'Sugar' Minott and his Youth Promotion label. A Japanese release on the Nec Avenue label from 1987. Features artists like Donna P, Steve Knight, Blacka T, Sugar himself and others. All songs were produced by Sugar Minott, the first song 'Bad Girl Possie' with Peter Chemist on Music Mountain, all others for Youth Promotion International.
RIP Suga, you will be missed but never forgotten !
Nando Boom - Reggae Espagnol
Nando Boom, a Panamenian deejay tackles the biggest dancehall hits of the period in Spanish.Big up to all Panama crew, thanks for the collab and appreciation.
This post was donated by DJ Chimby, thanks.
Latest from T.Kao
A couple of years ago I reviewed the fine debut EP Hundred Flowers from T.Kao, and now he's back with a new release in the works. Also, he's recorded an interesting cover of the Blondie classic "Heart of Glass" which you can download at ReverbNation.
Here's a video for one of the songs from the upcoming album, "Crowded Streets in an Empty Town":
We'll let you know when the full-length becomes available.
Here's a video for one of the songs from the upcoming album, "Crowded Streets in an Empty Town":
We'll let you know when the full-length becomes available.
A welcome shift in Australian politics?
There has been a welcome shift in the political situation here in Australia.
In September last year there seemed to be no real opposition to Prime Minister Rudd's plans for a "Big Australia". There had been a staggering 876,222 arrivals in Australia in 2008 and the Immigration Minister was happy for this to continue:
Tony Abbott, the Leader of the Opposition, had also declared himself to be in favour of a Big Australia:
But the policy wasn't going down well amongst the working-class voters of western Sydney. As the election approached, it was one of the issues which was dooming the ALP to electoral defeat. And so Kevin Rudd was dramatically axed by his own party as PM, and Julia Gillard installed in his place. And her first policy initiative was to declare herself opposed to Rudd's Big Australia policy:
Gillard also announced as PM that it was OK to have a debate on issues of border security:
Nor is Tony Abbott talking anymore about "as many as possible". The Liberal Party has now put forward a "contract" which sets limits to immigration in terms of the need to provide adequate infrastructure:
Of course, politicians will say anything to win elections. Neither party has committed to an exact migration level, although the Liberal Party has nominated a figure under 180,000 per year until a review has taken place.
Former Labor Party leader Mark Latham is sceptical that Gillard will deliver cuts to migration:
It has to be remembered as well that immigration numbers began to skyrocket at the end of John Howard's Liberal Government, so it's not only Labor that we have to be careful about on this issue.
Even so, there are reasons to welcome the breaking up of the "Big Australia" consensus. It means, first of all, that there's more room for an open airing of views on the immigration issue. There have even been immigration sceptical columns appearing in the Melbourne Age newspaper (who would have thought?).
It demonstrates too why traditionalists shouldn't succumb to defeatism. You never know when the political situation is going to change, and the more we manage to build up some influence, the more we'll be able to intervene when opportunities arise to push things along in the right direction.
Finally, there's some evidence that the Liberal Party really has changed for the better on this issue. I'd prefer to present the evidence in my next column. It's not a complete break with past policy, nor is it really what traditionalists would want in the longer term, but I think it might be good enough to vote for. But it deserves a column of its own.
In September last year there seemed to be no real opposition to Prime Minister Rudd's plans for a "Big Australia". There had been a staggering 876,222 arrivals in Australia in 2008 and the Immigration Minister was happy for this to continue:
Senator Evans said immigration should be the nation's labour agency, meaning a continued high intake of migrants ... Decisions about who came to Australia would increasingly be left to employers.
Tony Abbott, the Leader of the Opposition, had also declared himself to be in favour of a Big Australia:
My instinct is to extend to as many people as possible the freedom and benefits of life in Australia. A larger population will bring that about provided that it’s also a more productive one.
But the policy wasn't going down well amongst the working-class voters of western Sydney. As the election approached, it was one of the issues which was dooming the ALP to electoral defeat. And so Kevin Rudd was dramatically axed by his own party as PM, and Julia Gillard installed in his place. And her first policy initiative was to declare herself opposed to Rudd's Big Australia policy:
Australia should not hurtle down the track towards a big population. I don't support the idea of a big Australia... We need to stop, take a breath and develop policies for a sustainable Australia.
Gillard also announced as PM that it was OK to have a debate on issues of border security:
"People should feel free to say what they feel," she said.
"For people to say they're anxious about border security doesn't make them intolerant. It certainly doesn't make them a racist. It means that they're expressing a genuine view that they're anxious about border security ...
"So I'd like to sweep away any sense that people should close down any debate, including this debate, through a sense of self-censorship or political correctness."
Nor is Tony Abbott talking anymore about "as many as possible". The Liberal Party has now put forward a "contract" which sets limits to immigration in terms of the need to provide adequate infrastructure:
Contract 6: Link population growth to the provision of better infrastructure. The Coalition will set immigration numbers on the basis of economic and environmental sustainability.
Of course, politicians will say anything to win elections. Neither party has committed to an exact migration level, although the Liberal Party has nominated a figure under 180,000 per year until a review has taken place.
Former Labor Party leader Mark Latham is sceptical that Gillard will deliver cuts to migration:
Former Labor leader Mark Latham has labelled Labor's position on population growth "a fraud of the worst order", saying immigration numbers must be slashed.
Speaking on Sky News on Wednesday night, Mr Latham said it was not good enough for Prime Minister Julia Gillard to simply call for a debate on population, and she had to put forward a concrete plan on the issue.
Ms Gillard's "sustainable" population call was not backed with any substance and was a "fraud" designed to appeal to western Sydney voters sensitive to the asylum seeker issue, Mr Latham said.
"It's clever politics but it's a fraud. It's a fraud of the worst order," he said.
The former Labor leader said Australia needed to "take off the population pressure".
His comments followed statements by Ms Gillard on Sunday that she did not want to specify a population target but did not support the idea of "a big Australia".
It has to be remembered as well that immigration numbers began to skyrocket at the end of John Howard's Liberal Government, so it's not only Labor that we have to be careful about on this issue.
Even so, there are reasons to welcome the breaking up of the "Big Australia" consensus. It means, first of all, that there's more room for an open airing of views on the immigration issue. There have even been immigration sceptical columns appearing in the Melbourne Age newspaper (who would have thought?).
It demonstrates too why traditionalists shouldn't succumb to defeatism. You never know when the political situation is going to change, and the more we manage to build up some influence, the more we'll be able to intervene when opportunities arise to push things along in the right direction.
Finally, there's some evidence that the Liberal Party really has changed for the better on this issue. I'd prefer to present the evidence in my next column. It's not a complete break with past policy, nor is it really what traditionalists would want in the longer term, but I think it might be good enough to vote for. But it deserves a column of its own.
Freebie of the Day: Stu Lewis-Waste Not What Not
There's a lot of free music online these days, but even "free" music comes at a cost: your listening time. So it's nice to pass on something that's free but also worth a listen. Stu Lewis is offering up his debut EP Waste Not What Not gratis, and it's a fun 5-track helping of synth-influenced power pop a la The Cars or The Rentals. "With Authority" and "Stay Free" are the conventional standouts here, but the track that will really make you glad you gave this a download is "Michelle", Lewis' love letter to the First Lady ("I know she's a married two-time mama/but I'm love with Michelle Obama"). This track will either get him a command performance at the White House or placement on a Secret Service Watch List, but either way it'll get stuck in your head.
Get it here.
Richie Stephens - Sincerely
Richie Stephens at King Jammys early 90's , rare release and since been deleted on CD, never seen the vinyl yet!!!!
password is computerizedThanks to Computerized for this contribution, check out his very informative site about King Jammys: www.kingjammys.co.uk
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)