Libs have balance of power in senate
 

Watch Howard and co do whatever they want - they now have the numbers in both houses of parliament :|

What do people think of this?

I think it sucks.

And watch how people begin to bleat about how it will give untrammeled power to Howard Inc to ruin this great country's system of "fair go", level playing field, social conscience and multi-culturalism... three weeks after they voted him back in with a relative landslide.

It makes me sick.


Mr Mephisto

They can't exactly do what they want, there is the whole idea of a Govenor General...it's happened before.

Problem thoe it's not often that the Govenor General has stepped in to block something that the senate has passed.
*sigh* Mr Mephisto has again said everything I feel.

The governor general won't step in unless some really crazy stuff happens.

I wasn't expecting them to get more seats than they had before... I thought Labor might have had a chance of winning this one... but instead they lost it worse than last time :|

You also have to remember that the GG was chosen by who? little Johnnie.
GG really is a figure head role - they rubber stamp legislation, and attend openings/public ceremonies etc.

Their entry into politics really is an aberration.

The Australian people have spoken, and we are about to see the consequences :(

but that's exactly my point, they can do ANYTHING they want. There are controls.

Well, its a dangerous situation no matter what. Id feel aprehensive if it was either party. Probably the first thing the libs will push through is the Fair Dissmissal Bill. Its been blocked 41 times before. Now there nothing stopping it. Bad news if you are low income worker. esp for small business.
Sad about the old democrats getting cained. Natasha should have led the party, not that drunk other guy. Democrats are heeps fastidious about the precious situation in the senate. Oh well, fingers crossed.

In past elections I thought that there was always a neutral alternative in the Democrats. So they would get alot of peoples (me included) votes in the senate. However with their own party in turmoil, people were thinking who is the alternate of the smaller parties, the Greens & Family First.

The Greens really got on the back of the Labour party, so maybe lost their neutrality. Also in my area, there was a heavy campain against them for their drug policy. People may of thought they were too far to the right.

The Family First party is new and are aligned with the Assembly of God Church. This may put people off? They had conservative ideas so people may link them to the Liberal party. The "burning of lesbians" comment also maybe got people thinking "what kind of radical church is this?"

For all this I think the Liberals gained from the doubts of others, better the devil you know ...yea right!

Now this may be all crap, but that is how I read it. The liberals have always had excellent media coverage/control, so maybe this is what they wanted me to think?

So long Telstra, it was good (relatively speaking) while we owned you!

Dangerous situation my arse. What the hell are you people thinking? That Howard sits at the lodge in a big chair, stroking his hairless cat, trying to think up ways to destroy the free world? Fuck me dead, talk about alarmist.

These people have guided Australia for the best part of the last decade and have turned it into one of the strongest economies and overall nations in the world. They do in fact have people to answer to you know... the bloody public.

I know this doesn't come as a huge shock for most of you, but I for one am happy that they have control of both houses, in my eyes this means that for the first time in a long time the majority will be put first, and sweeping changes can take place without having to bow to every bloody minority that wants to have a whinge. It's a democracy remember, controlled by the majority.

So go forth Johnny, and send your formally log-jammed bills through into law, cause I trust the people that we voted in, and see this as a huge opportunity.

Meridae'n, this is the stuff most of us are talking about (well I am anyway), I agree he's done a decent job as PM, but for a bill to be shot down as many times as this, it kind of says something about what a lot of people around the country feel about it and what kind of things it allows people to do.
I tend to think of the senate as a mediator, since it usually has members from all parties; a way of making sure everyone is getting a fair go with the new legislation being put forward. To me, now it seams that this mediator check for everyone has been dissolved for a few years.

Yeah,
For a democracy to work effectively you need a strong opposition to keep the bastards (on both sides) honest (well, as honest as politicians can be anyway).

You're right Madd, this will have it's good and it's bad consequences. I guess I was just trying to state that it's not all doom and gloom, and that these people still have to answer to the people in their electorate, I just did a shithouse job as usual.

It's some consolation to me that it's all the libs making the majority. For a while there, it was looking like they'd need the Family First guy to make it a majority, and If the libs are going to have the upper house anyway, I'd prefer it to be a situation where FF doesn't hold any sway over them.

I'm so fucking with you on that one TIO. Last thing we need is religion rearing it's hypocritical head... next thing you know we'd be murdering felons and telling women what to do with their own bodies.

Hey Tio,
When i was 8 i won a colouring in competition in the local newspaper. I won a t-shirt for my troubles. My tshirt was white and had your avatar on the front of it. Pretty cool hey. I wish i still had that damn t-shirt.

I wasn't suprised by the success of FF. The zealots of this country need a new fad, and One Nation have had their day.

Yes, thats a good point I never thought of TIO, while I dont like the majority aspect, I do prefer the libs to run the show alone then having to change the bills to please FF.
With any luck, FF will fade away in the next few elections as One Nation have seamed to.

Right on Meridae'n, I recon religion and politics should not mix.

It's a good logo, AA :)
A mate of mine has it tattooed on his bicep. I rate that.

As for the FF thing...looks like we might not get away from them anyway. There's mumblings among my politico friends that the Libs figure they have a debt to FF for preferences, and may repay it in the form of some kind of abortion mandate.
Whether that's true or not, the state governments have responded to it:
http://www.news.com.au/common/story_...%255E2,00.html

Abortion is always a devisive issue. It has haunted the US presdidental debate for decades. With the rise of these godsquad groups and thier increasing influence, i think we will see shit like this and gay/gender issues more on the table.
In Oz we are pretty leveled headed usually and think that reason should come before belief.

Hey almostaugust, who are the quotes from in your sig? The first one sounds very Steven Wright-ish.

Actually, I know this is very O/T but you gotta love that Wright guy.....

"A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking"
"I almost had a psychic girlfriend but she left me before we met"
"Shin: a device for finding furniture in the dark"
"I was sad because I had no shoes, until I met a man who had no feet.
So I said, "Got any shoes you're not using?"
"A lot of people are afraid of heights. Not me, I'm afraid of widths"
"Sponges grow in the ocean. That just kills me. I wonder how much deeper the
ocean would be if that didn't happen"

Aaaah, fuck me, he's funny. Carry on.....

Yeah, the first one is steven wright. I dunno about the second.

He is hilarious. His droll monotone voice and sad demeanor are half the fun. A quote i heard from him recently that cracked me up was something like-
"A friend of mine has a baby. Im taping the noises he makes to play it back to him when he is older to ask him what he meant".

I think politicians are smart enough to realise that even if they wanted to get rid of abortion, they have to be tricky about it. There are enough people that, while not wanting an abortion, want us to have the right to choose. I think they will always go about it via the education/prevention route. I don't think either side of politics really want to touch this one.

I guess the only way of knowing what the outcome of freedom in both houses for the coalition is to wait and see. If they play it right, they may well increase their majority at the next election - who knows??

The current wording of the abortion thing confuses me: saying we need to reduce the number of abortions? What kind of shit is that? There are only two alternatives here.
First: a foetus is a living human being, and must therefore be protected by the same laws as the rest of us. Abortion is murder, abortion doctors and aborted mothers-to-be are prosecuted alike.
Second: a foetus isn't conscious yet, and is therefore just a bunch of cells that aren't doing much at the moment. Having an abortion to remove a foetus is no worse than getting a wart burnt off, and the only reason we'd want to reduce numbers is because it's becoming a drain on existing medical resources. Abortion clinics, as I understand it, have their own equipment and doctors, so it's not like any of them are being used for abortions when they could be doing other things, so the only problem is that it may be a burden on the taxpayers. Are abortions subsidised by Medicare?

Either way, it makes no sense to reduce the number of abortions. Either you ban them entirely, or you stop worrying.

Nice post. I would've added that reducing the number of abortions means you are really just reducing the amount of LEGAL abortions. They will keep happening, just more underground and therefore produce more deaths.

I agree with Meri - if it is outlawed, people will just go elsewhere to have it done (either underground or in another country). Neither is a particularly good outcome for people wanting to have this procedure done.

How long do you reckon it'll be before we're renamed New South America?

Yeah, its pretty annoying. Our biggest and most pervasive import from the US is its media and popular culture. We need more aussie content on tv, and someone has to retrieve the aussie film industry from the shitter.
Your probably talking bout the similar election results though. The way that Bush and Howard both got back in after heavy scrutiny about issues such as Iraq and concealing the truth, and also the rise of the christian right aswell. Yeah, that side of things is pretty daunting. On the upside, people are more aware of the issues than ever before in both countries. We also have the internet, which is a bonza tool to a shitload of information.

Libs & Industrial Relations
 

Much has been made of the likely industrial relations reforms once the libs get control of both houses. As someone who works in industrial relations I believe that the changes are not as radical as many like to suggest, particularly the unions. There has been no suggestion of doing away with the minimum wage safety net, nor the award system, nor any of the other 'social wage' improvements of the Hawke/Keating years (eg superannuation, etc). The Howard government has consistently rejected the more radical free market lobbyists who want to completely free up the employment market by scrapping wage and award protections and make industrial relations legislation subject to the Trade Practices Act. Howard has rejected this approach by keeping the minimum wage safety net and award system in place. Any bargaining cannot go below these minimum standards, taken as a whole. If you read the radical free market commentators, you will start to think that Howard is almost a moderate! I don't think their control of both houses will be as disastrous for industrial relations as the unions and those on the further left side of politics have been suggesting.

I couldn't see any political party move towards abolishing the award wage system. That would be political suicide, and although the move would not be able to be blocked in parliament, the public outcry would be overwhelming.

This page has some interesting comments.

I agree, but the minimum wage and award system are (highly desirable) social safety nets that genuine free market thought rejects. Retaining these safety nets places the libs at right of centre, not at the totally free market end of economic thought.

The points in the HR Magazine link relating to award wage rates and the Bill that will require the AIRC to take into account the effect of wage increases on employment rates will not have a discernible effect on their decision making processes. The AIRC (and its predecessors) have always had regard to broader economic concerns when considering national wage cases and the Bill the article refers to will not change this. Employer groups predictably trot out the "increased wages costs jobs" argument whenever presenting wage case submissions to the AIRC.

Having said all that, I agree that the libs (or either major party) having control of both houses may be a concern. We'll just have to wait and see whether they overstep the mark - it bothers me when they speak of mandates.