World Politics

Page 200 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
May 2, 2010
1,504
0
0
auscyclefan94 said:
Yes I would like to keep the skilled immigrants who come over here to have an education to stay here, but the funny thing is that these overseas "immigrants" take up the spots of actual australians citizens in our universities and then take their skills gained from our universities back to their country and do not become permanent immigrants. That's why we also should be cautious of letting more people into our country even if they are only going to be here temporarily.

Sorry, understand I went a little off ferminal's point but it is kinda to do with what he/she is saying.

Ferminal, it is not just your area where you live where it is getting crowded. It is every city.
No. International students do NOT take the places of Australian students at our universities.Uuniversities have had quotas in place on courses well before the explosion of international student enrolments.

Due to the reduced funding from the federal government to universities under the Howard governments, universities needed to seek other sources of funding. They did this by increasing local fee paying places, and by attracting international students. If they banned all international students from studying at universities you would not see an increase in local places. This is ignoring the fact that a lot of universities would close unless federal funding was dramatically increased.

Prior to the crackdown on the numbers of the skill migration programs in 2009, approximately 70% of international students were successful in obtaining permanent residency after they completed their studies. FYI - The international education industry was Australia's 3rd largest export, bringing in approximately 18 billion dollars to the economy in 2009.

The Labor government is actually trying to reduce/remove the quotas by increasing the funding to universities, and removing local fee paying places. If this is a topic you are actually interested in, I would suggest you go and read the Bradley review.
 
May 2, 2010
1,504
0
0
Bala Verde said:
Actually, in last week's The Economist, in an article on the British higher education services industry, they said that it's an extremely profitable business (revenues amounting to GBP25.4 billion in Britain, 10% comes from international sources, and in addition foreign students spend another GBP2.3 Billion on accommodation, drinking and food, entertainment etc)

Moreover, because foreigners are charged more in tuition fees, they in effect subsidize undergraduate spots for the natives. Another observation was that standards (grades) in UK were going down, but with the influx of foreigners, who were said to be more motivated and harder working, the standards have stayed at the same level.

I don't know Australia's exact figures, but they did mentioned that Australia is increasing its marketshare. They also mentiond something about a murder of an Indian accountant graduate (Nitin Garg?) and a series of attacks on young Indian men, which has dampened their enthusiasm.

Asia is one of the biggest market where many unis are expanding their presence, or want to draw from. Australia then seems to be very well located to attract those new students.
Australia has been increasing its market share for quite some time. This however is due for a decrease in the next few years for the following reasons:

1. The UK and the US are becoming more active in the market for international students. Due to the overwhelming success of Australia's international student market in the last decade, they are basing a lot of their policies on what we have already done.

2. The strength of the Australian dollar. Closely linked to point number 1, it makes those countries more comporable in terms of expense.

3. The govt. has made the criteria for issuing student visas from certain countries incredibly strict.

4. The govt. removing the direct link from education to permanent residency.

5. Attacks on Indian students. This in conjuction with point 3 has lead to a massive descrease in the number of students enrolling in our education institutions from India.
 
Jun 16, 2009
19,325
0
0
Spare Tyre said:
:eek: We must mix in very different circles.
You do realise there is going to be a major swing against Labor wherever you are? Have you looked at the recent polls for the state election? labor is going down the crapper.
 
May 2, 2010
1,504
0
0
auscyclefan94 said:
You do realise there is going to be a major swing against Labor wherever you are? Have you looked at the recent polls for the state election? labor is going down the crapper.
I disagree. They will receive swings against them in NSW, QLD & WA. They will hold fairly steady or make some gains in VIC & SA.
 
Jun 16, 2009
19,325
0
0
thrawn said:
No. International students do NOT take the places of Australian students at our universities.Uuniversities have had quotas in place on courses well before the explosion of international student enrolments.

Due to the reduced funding from the federal government to universities under the Howard governments, universities needed to seek other sources of funding. They did this by increasing local fee paying places, and by attracting international students. If they banned all international students from studying at universities you would not see an increase in local places. This is ignoring the fact that a lot of universities would close unless federal funding was dramatically increased.

Prior to the crackdown on the numbers of the skill migration programs in 2009, approximately 70% of international students were successful in obtaining permanent residency after they completed their studies. FYI - The international education industry was Australia's 3rd largest export, bringing in approximately 18 billion dollars to the economy in 2009.

The Labor government is actually trying to reduce/remove the quotas by increasing the funding to universities, and removing local fee paying places. If this is a topic you are actually interested in, I would suggest you go and read the Bradley review.
Yes, but if the International students had universities set up by their own imcompetent governments then they would not have to come over here therefore more places for Australians. Then they would not gain their skills from our uni's and take it back to their own countries.

btw, ferminal, a hung parliament is not a good thing as that means not much legislation would pass through either house and we would have to go to the polls again. but whoever gets voted in, it is going to be harder to pass legislation with a small majority either way.
 
Nov 2, 2009
1,117
0
0
auscyclefan94 said:
You do realise there is going to be a major swing against Labor wherever you are? Have you looked at the recent polls for the state election? labor is going down the crapper.
I think Labor will definitely lose the next state election, however, I'm not at all sure this (understandable) disaffection for the Victorian government will translate into votes for Abbott & co.

Most people I know are not at all impressed with Labor but are loathe to vote for Abbott and the Neo-Conservatives. (The Liberal tradition in the party is just about dead and few if any liberals remain, so I think they should be renamed.) I know many people who are totally disillusioned with both major parties and will vote Greens, for a variety of reasons. As I said, we must mix in different circles.
 
Jun 16, 2009
19,325
0
0
Spare Tyre said:
I think Labor will definitely lose the next state election, however, I'm not at all sure this (understandable) disaffection for the Victorian government will translate into votes for Abbott & co.

Most people I know are not at all impressed with Labor but are loathe to vote for Abbott and the Neo-Conservatives. (The Liberal tradition in the party is just about dead and few if any liberals remain, so I think they should be renamed.) I know many people who are totally disillusioned with both major parties and will vote Greens, for a variety of reasons. As I said, we must mix in different circles.
Yeah, lets vote greens as they cost peoples jobs, have radical ideas about the environment and if they ever have any power the economy will go down the crapper!:rolleyes: Greens would be the last people who I would vote for. A lot of experts agreed with me that the trends in the state elections will cause a big swing in the federal. Assuming you are a labor supporter, why are you voting for them?
 
May 2, 2010
1,504
0
0
auscyclefan94 said:
Yes, but if the International students had universities set up by their own imcompetent governments then they would not have to come over here therefore more places for Australians. Then they would not gain their skills from our uni's and take it back to their own countries.

btw, ferminal, a hung parliament is not a good thing as that means not much legislation would pass through either house and we would have to go to the polls again. but whoever gets voted in, it is going to be harder to pass legislation with a small majority either way.
It's not as simple as other governments setting up universities to educate their own. Other countries simply lack the research and teaching expertise that we have at our universities. According to the Times Higher Education rankings (the most reputable ranking systems for universities in the world), Australia has 6 of the top 50 universities in the world (link : http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/hybrid.asp?typeCode=438). Only the UK and the US have more universities in the top 50. Some countries from the middle east and Africa actually pay for their students to come and study here. They then take those skills back home to improve the teaching and research at their own universities.

I think you simply skipped over a couple of points in my post. As stated, approximately 70% of international students succeeded in obtaining Australian Permanent Residency, so the majority were not taking their skills back home.

Decreasing the number of international students will not increase the number of local students. Go back and read the information I told you regarding course quotas. This also ignores the fact that the majority of Australian universities rely on international student tuition fees for financial viability. Taking this source of income away from universities would either force closures, or cause a serious reduction in local student numbers as the universities would not be able to afford teaching them (universities lose approximately $100 p.a. for each local student enrolled).
 
Jun 16, 2009
19,325
0
0
thrawn said:
It's not as simple as other governments setting up universities to educate their own. Other countries simply lack the research and teaching expertise that we have at our universities. According to the Times Higher Education rankings (the most reputable ranking systems for universities in the world), Australia has 6 of the top 50 universities in the world (link : http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/hybrid.asp?typeCode=438). Only the UK and the US have more universities in the top 50. Some countries from the middle east and Africa actually pay for their students to come and study here. They then take those skills back home to improve the teaching and research at their own universities.

I think you simply skipped over a couple of points in my post. As stated, approximately 70% of international students succeeded in obtaining Australian Permanent Residency, so the majority were not taking their skills back home.

Decreasing the number of international students will not increase the number of local students. Go back and read the information I told you regarding course quotas. This also ignores the fact that the majority of Australian universities rely on international student tuition fees for financial viability. Taking this source of income away from universities would either force closures, or cause a serious reduction in local student numbers as the universities would not be able to afford teaching them (universities lose approximately $100 p.a. for each local student enrolled).
fair enough but 30% is still quite substancial.
 
Nov 2, 2009
1,117
0
0
auscyclefan94 said:
Yeah, lets vote greens as they cost peoples jobs, have radical ideas about the environment and if they ever have any power the economy will go down the crapper!:rolleyes: Greens would be the last people who I would vote for. A lot of experts agreed with me that the trends in the state elections will cause a big swing in the federal. Assuming you are a labor supporter, why are you voting for them?
I'm voting for the party that best represents my social and political values, has demonstrated a consistent respect for scientific research, does not accept donations from big business (and therefore is not beholden to it/them), and which offers policy based on principles rather than attempts to win the populist vote.

I don't expect them to win, but I hope they become increasingly influential. In the face of peak oil, climate change and the rapidly increasing global population, along with depleted infrastructure and increasing social-economic inequity, I think we need an alternative vision and a political influence at variance from big coal & big business, and the neo-liberal economic agenda (which has dominated politics for the past three decades to the point where it has become internalized and normalized and people don't see other possibilities).

I understand you will almost certainly see things differently.
 
Jun 16, 2009
19,325
0
0
Spare Tyre said:
I'm voting for the party that best represents my social and political values, has demonstrated a consistent respect for scientific research, does not accept donations from big business (and therefore is not beholden to it/them), and which offers policy based on principles rather than attempts to win the populist vote.
.
Well I am not going to vote for a party that:

-is unstable
-can't manage the economy even though they claim they do
-has no clue on immigration
-screws over the mining industry with crazy taxes
-is going to increase prices of goods at supermarkets
-comes up with campaign messages and ads that are completely false.

It is funny how they edited that economy advertisement for labor with costello "slamming" abbott when obviously he was being sarcastic and the press when he said that were laughing. Abbott obviously knows a fair bit about the economy as he is a rogue scolar in economics and law.

I am going to argue with you on the greens as they are just trouble if they get more power.
 
May 2, 2010
1,504
0
0
auscyclefan94 said:
Well I am not going to vote for a party that:

-is unstable
-can't manage the economy even though they claim they do
-has no clue on immigration
-screws over the mining industry with crazy taxes
-is going to increase prices of goods at supermarkets
-comes up with campaign messages and ads that are completely false.

It is funny how they edited that economy advertisement for labor with costello "slamming" abbott when obviously he was being sarcastic and the press when he said that were laughing. Abbott obviously knows a fair bit about the economy as he is a rogue scolar in economics and law.

I am going to argue with you on the greens as they are just trouble if they get more power.
I think you will find he wasn't talking about the Labor party...

I am curious though, which policy of the Labor party do you think is going to increase the prices of goods at supermarkets?
 
May 18, 2009
3,492
0
0
You guys need to cut out the talk about this Aussie political stuff. There are more importanit things to talk about, like that mosque in Manhatten and Dr. Laura using the N word.

Those type of things really effect people's lives, unlike talk about economic or foreign policy of any candidate. That's minor irrelevant stuff.
 
Jun 16, 2009
19,325
0
0
Sorry, I meant small businesses. Taxes on small businesses are forcing those businesses to put prices up. Due to those taxes businesses have to cut workers. Also businesses lose workers because there is no paid parental leave leave policies in place. With the increased pressure on families with interest rates and taxes increasing, all prices of things have to go up.
 
Nov 2, 2009
1,117
0
0
auscyclefan94 said:
Well I am not going to vote for a party that:

-is unstable
-can't manage the economy even though they claim they do
-has no clue on immigration
-screws over the mining industry with crazy taxes
-is going to increase prices of goods at supermarkets
-comes up with campaign messages and ads that are completely false.

It is funny how they edited that economy advertisement for labor with costello "slamming" abbott when obviously he was being sarcastic and the press when he said that were laughing. Abbott obviously knows a fair bit about the economy as he is a rogue scolar in economics and law.

I am going to argue with you on the greens as they are just trouble if they get more power.
Unfortunately things tend to get a bit pot/kettle when it comes to political advertising.

I don't know where you get your information from. Is it commercial tv? In any case, I wonder how many of the election claims of both major parties are actually based on scientific evidence or other research, and how much based on ideology and the results of polls and market research.

For instance, over a 5 year period we received just over 22,000 asylum seekers (and remember, it is legally permissable to seek asylum, according to international conventions to which we remain a signatory party.) According to the ABS "The latest one million people were added to the population in less than 2 ½ years, which is one year less than the time taken for the previous million to be added, and almost two years less than the time taken to add the million before that. " (ref: http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4102.0Main+Features10Jun+2010) In other words, asylum seekers are not responsible for the rapid population rise, and the numbers are insignificant compared to other migrants and natural births. You'd never know this from all the hysteria over asylum seekers and boats, though.
 
May 2, 2010
1,504
0
0
auscyclefan94 said:
Sorry, I meant small businesses. Taxes on small businesses are forcing those businesses to put prices up. Due to those taxes businesses have to cut workers. Also businesses lose workers because there is no paid parental leave leave policies in place. With the increased pressure on families with interest rates and taxes increasing, all prices of things have to go up.
Please point me to the specific Labor party policy that is going to increase the tax rate for small business. I think you will find that they are actually cutting the company tax rate. The Liberal Party are also cutting the company tax rate, only to put a 1.5% tax on big businesses to fund his maternity leave scheme. You will also find that the Labor party have both maternity and paternity leave schemes as policy.
 
Mar 10, 2009
7,119
0
0
thrawn said:
Australia has been increasing its market share for quite some time. This however is due for a decrease in the next few years for the following reasons:

1. The UK and the US are becoming more active in the market for international students. Due to the overwhelming success of Australia's international student market in the last decade, they are basing a lot of their policies on what we have already done.

2. The strength of the Australian dollar. Closely linked to point number 1, it makes those countries more comporable in terms of expense.

3. The govt. has made the criteria for issuing student visas from certain countries incredibly strict.

4. The govt. removing the direct link from education to permanent residency.

5. Attacks on Indian students. This in conjuction with point 3 has lead to a massive descrease in the number of students enrolling in our education institutions from India.
thanks for the insight!
 
Jul 3, 2009
17,039
1
0
thrawn said:
I disagree. They will receive swings against them in NSW, QLD & WA. They will hold fairly steady or make some gains in VIC & SA.
I didn't realise they could get any worse in WA? There are only really 3 seats on the line for ALP in WA, they could pick up two but lose one, although there is a new electorate which they can't win.

Personally I couldn't vote for the Greens given that they are now a major party and come July 2011 will hold the balance of power in the senate. Thus I would actually have to take them seriously (rather than just voting for them because I agree with a few of their ideologies). I certainly agree with most of their social and political policies but there are things I don't follow such as:

- 40% GHG reduction by 2020, come on!
- Taking a stick to the coal industry
- Greater taxation and interference in the economy.
- Protectionism (in the name of the environment)
- No uranium mining

The #1 thing I like about the Greens is their preference of a Carbon Tax over a CPRS, whilst Gillard said she would not consider a tax.

So for me, it will be an informal in the house of reps and a vote for the minor parties in the senate, in order of the most socially liberal to the least.
 
May 2, 2010
1,504
0
0
Ferminal said:
I didn't realise they could get any worse in WA? There are only really 3 seats on the line for ALP in WA, they could pick up two but lose one, although there is a new electorate which they can't win.

Personally I couldn't vote for the Greens given that they are now a major party and come July 2011 will hold the balance of power in the senate. Thus I would actually have to take them seriously (rather than just voting for them because I agree with a few of their ideologies). I certainly agree with most of their social and political policies but there are things I don't follow such as:

- 40% GHG reduction by 2020, come on!
- Taking a stick to the coal industry
- Greater taxation and interference in the economy.
- Protectionism (in the name of the environment)
- No uranium mining

The #1 thing I like about the Greens is their preference of a Carbon Tax over a CPRS, whilst Gillard said she would not consider a tax.

So for me, it will be an informal in the house of reps and a vote for the minor parties in the senate, in order of the most socially liberal to the least.
Well it is pretty hard for things to get worse for Labor in WA, but they will receive a swing against them there. As one of the two main mining states, they are incredibly peeved with the mining tax. Labor have 4 seats in WA currently. I think they will lose Hasluck and Brand, with Perth & Fremantle becoming marginal for the next election. If there is enough anger there, those two could potentially fall, although I hope Stephen Smith holds Perth, as I think he's done a pretty decent job. I also think the Liberals will increase their majorities in the seats they hold there by about 5%.

I'm also voting along the same lines as you for the election :) - annoyed me that Latham advocated an informal vote though :(
 
Nov 2, 2009
1,117
0
0
Ferminal said:
I didn't realise they could get any worse in WA? There are only really 3 seats on the line for ALP in WA, they could pick up two but lose one, although there is a new electorate which they can't win.

Personally I couldn't vote for the Greens given that they are now a major party and come July 2011 will hold the balance of power in the senate. Thus I would actually have to take them seriously (rather than just voting for them because I agree with a few of their ideologies). I certainly agree with most of their social and political policies but there are things I don't follow such as:

- 40% GHG reduction by 2020, come on!
- Taking a stick to the coal industry
- Greater taxation and interference in the economy.
- Protectionism (in the name of the environment)
- No uranium mining

The #1 thing I like about the Greens is their preference of a Carbon Tax over a CPRS, whilst Gillard said she would not consider a tax.

So for me, it will be an informal in the house of reps and a vote for the minor parties in the senate, in order of the most socially liberal to the least.
Ferminal, I'm curious: What 2020 GHG cut do you think is reasonable? How do you envision the coal industry in future, given your comment about the stick? Given that many climate scientists think we (the planet) are pretty much at climate change tipping point already and that the window of opportunity for meaningful action is small and closing quickly, how do you think we should tackle things? And, given that Australia has one of the largest "footprints" globally and uses little energy from renewable sources, at what point do you think we should start making changes? Finally, are you familiar with the work of Beyond Zero and their proposal for solar/salt (?) power and wind farms?
 
Jul 23, 2009
1,120
0
0
redtreviso said:
I try to do random acts of kindness every day..unlike republicans who can't wait to do the opposite... It is not me that puts the final touch to someone's rotten day..My fellow man suffered no harm at my hands today..How bout you?
Did you practice your 1st amendment rights with Laura Schlesinger? Watch foxnews? Say megadittos to anyone?

btw...Ollie North didn't really warn Senator Al Gore about Osama bin Laden..
No, I just talk to people who have lost family members to violent crime (murder) and try to help them deal with their loss by insuring the person responsible is brought to justice.
 
Jul 23, 2009
1,120
0
0
ChrisE said:
You guys need to cut out the talk about this Aussie political stuff. There are more importanit things to talk about, like that mosque in Manhatten and Dr. Laura using the N word.

Those type of things really effect people's lives, unlike talk about economic or foreign policy of any candidate. That's minor irrelevant stuff.
I have found it interesting myself. I have not thought about Aussie politics for several years since losing regular contact with my Aussie friends. Since my son has an opportunity to be a foreign exchange student there in the next couple of years this discussion has been intriguing for me.
 
Jul 9, 2009
6,625
0
0
ChrisE said:
You guys need to cut out the talk about this Aussie political stuff. There are more importanit things to talk about, like that mosque in Manhatten and Dr. Laura using the N word.

Those type of things really effect people's lives, unlike talk about economic or foreign policy of any candidate. That's minor irrelevant stuff.
I just mostly scanned the Aussie politics posts and frankly I understand very little of it. What I really don't understand though is how they can have a serious political discussion without resorting to name calling. Have they learned nothing from us Americans?
 
Jul 3, 2009
17,039
1
0
Spare Tyre said:
Ferminal, I'm curious: What 2020 GHG cut do you think is reasonable? How do you envision the coal industry in future, given your comment about the stick? Given that many climate scientists think we (the planet) are pretty much at climate change tipping point already and that the window of opportunity for meaningful action is small and closing quickly, how do you think we should tackle things? And, given that Australia has one of the largest "footprints" globally and uses little energy from renewable sources, at what point do you think we should start making changes? Finally, are you familiar with the work of Beyond Zero and their proposal for solar/salt (?) power and wind farms?
I don't really know, I don't know the economic impact well enough to make an accurate suggestion. But the impact from a 40% cut is bound to be exponentially greater than 20%. At the end of the day it boils down to whatever post-Kyoto brings us. If USA, Japan, UK etc agree to 40% by 2020 and China, India, Brazil, Malaysia etc agree to massive cuts in intensity then 40% is ok I guess.

But for Australia it's such a huge effort, much more so than the Western European nations. We were antagonistic at Kyoto negotiations and got 112% plus natural sinks, but there is a reason behind it - our economy is inherently more carbon intensive than other developed nations. This will continue for as long as mining and agriculture hold a significant share.

No commitment in Australia is going to change anything, so to be the first mover in this situation could be detrimental to our future. Whatever post-Kyoto brings us we can work from there, perhaps there will be a completely new international agreement outside the UNFCCC. I actually think Rudd took the right decision in delaying the CPRS which was echoed when the US' cap'n'trade got knocked back.

The coal industry is on borrowed time, I think we can all agree on that. However we can't just cut it up yet, we can't just ban coal exports and think we are doing the world a favour - it simply means dirtier coal is used as a substitute. Also, the mythical idea of CCS is one of the things which could help the major industralising nations get their emissions under control - there are simply not enough clean renewable resources on the planet to satisfy our appetite for energy.

Australia is in a unique position because we could satisfy our demands based on a renewables grid. We can't just make that transition on Sunday however, it would take decades of structural change, with the main driver a carbon tax. The Greens' whole policy should be based on reforming the role of government in energy market, with their carbon tax promoting investment in cleaner energy. There is no way we can achieve 40% with a "safety-first" (i.e. a tax rate which doesn't blow industry out of the water) market approach which is I guess what I support.

I know a lot of people don't like to hear it, but AGW is a fight we need to have on the international level before we come up with a domestic resolution. We aren't going to win anything by being a hero and going it alone.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
S General 3
Similar threads
2019 Rugby World Cup

ASK THE COMMUNITY