Subject:
|
Re: Lap-dogs (was: It didn't have to be this way....)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 13 Oct 2004 04:33:16 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1245 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Parsons wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford wrote:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Parsons wrote:
> > > Dunno. Maybe I'm being unnecessarily morose. Bush's Australian Deputy
> > > Sheriff Howard got re-elected for four more years over the weekend, so I
> > > may simply be depressed.
> >
> > LOL it doesn't really depress me, but it does surprise me. I mean, everyone
> > I've spoken to since the election has said "so who the heck voted
> > Liberal??". But I guess that's probably just a case of me associating with
> > people that share similar views.
>
> Don't know about that. I have had the same experience in places where one ought
> to have found a large number of supporters. One is drawn towards the conclusion
> that many folks made the choice to vote liberal but are not prepared to fess up
> in public. Perhaps this indicates a triumph of personal fear and selfishness
> over public principle. Scary.
Hmmmmm. Maybe.
> > But just to be my usual pedantic self, our federal term is 3 years maximum,
> > and highly adjustable.
>
> Of course. Told you I was depressed.
>
> > It will be interesting to see what happens with the FTA too now that
> > Liberals are looking like possibly getting a majority in the senate.
>
> Either a majority on their own, or with some new family party from the right -
> Victorian based I understand.
Hmmmm not sure. I thought most of the leader-types were from Adelaide but I may
be mistaken. And even though they say they will argue each bill on it's merits,
one has to wonder, given their election deal with Johnny.
> And the FTA is a lay down misère I think. What will be interesting is to see
> what this actually does to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and the price of
> medicines in Australia. We call it social welfare policy and the American drug
> companies call it protectionism contrary to free trade (and therefore bad, evil,
> naughty thing).
Yeah, I'm mainly thinking about the amendments that were previously put through
by Labor, which the US haven't agreed to yet. One of which concerns the PBS.
Depending on how the US election goes, a conservative win will probably mean
pressure is put on our "lap dog" to reverse said amendments.
> Look out for the watering down of the unfair dismissal laws in a lcm national
> approach, a lack of focus on telecommunications services in uneconomic areas, an
> immigration exclusion zone only slightly smaller than the coastline, a
> relatively larger defence budget and a relatively smaller aid budget.
Yeah. And who knows what they will do after they "fix" all those things????
> But like most western democracies, we have no excuse to complain too hard. We
> get what we asked for. We get what we wanted. We get what we deserve. Dang,
> perhaps I am living in the wrong country.
Yeah, like I said to a Canadian friend of mine, maybe they live in the only sane
country. (And she replied that it's because she makes everyone sane, but I think
that was a joke...)
> It is somehow disquieting though that we elect labor state governments all over
> the place to run education, health, policing and a thousand other things more
> immediately impinging on day to day life, but elect the liberals to run the
> national agenda. Need to think on this some more, but its hard to see how its a
> good sign.
Hmmmmm. Yeah I hadn't really thought about that either, but it does seem a
little weird.
ROSCO
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
8 Messages in This Thread:
  
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
