The coming Oz election thread ...

Nah - they've been more actively bullying during this regime.

I mean, it is public.

A thought: Why not make the take-over of Oz by US interests formal? Why not hold the Oz election (big secret at the moment! ) on the same day as the US election? Come to think of it, this might just happen! Howard could well decide this is a great strategy!

Hey, I think I'm seriously onto something here! What's the date of the US election again?

Election day for those voting for John Kerry is November 2nd and election day for those voting for George Bush is November 3rd.

Very funny doglover!

Hmmmmmm ... So this means the Oz election date will be November 3! I'm not a betting woman, but I have this very strong feeling I may be right on this one.

The justices of the Supreme Court will cast their votes on Nov. 5th.......

Very funny, Mr S!


... And an attack on which country will be planned on the 6th? :wink:

But one thing's for certain: If John Howard is reelected in Oz (God help us!) & George Bush is reelected in the US (God help us all!) then whatever George decides on the 6th, John will endorse on the 7th.

Oh! Suddenly I feel SO depressed!

ABC online news:
Last Update: Friday, August 6, 2004. 11:46am (AEST)


Howard to consider Labor's FTA amendment


Prime Minister John Howard says he is willing to look at a Labor amendment on pharmaceutical prices, in a move which could see the Government's free trade agreement with the United States approved by Parliament next week.

Mr Howard has accused Opposition Leader Mark Latham of changing his position on the amendment outlined by Labor earlier this week, which it says will safeguard the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS).

The deal had been deadlocked, with the Government refusing to accept a Labor amendment.

Labor has insisted on new penalties to stop US drug companies from using patent claims to delay the release of cheaper generic medicines.

The Government says the amendment is unnecessary and could undermine Australia's patent laws.

Now Mr Howard says a Labor amendment could be considered.

"If the Labor Party has an amendment that is not damaging to the patent law of this country, and that would not be desirable, then bring it forward and let's have a look at it," he said.

"Securing the free trade agreement for Australia is far more important than any temporary political advantage that I might gain, or Mr Latham might gain."

The Opposition says its lawyers are still working on the finer details but the amendment will be tabled on Monday.

"We're taking legal advice we have expert legal advice and we will be circulating our amendments next week as we have always said," Labor trade spokesman Stephen Conroy said.

Mr Conroy says Labor's position has not changed.

"Labor has had the same position, it's in writing, it was issued in a press release on Tuesday," he said.

Speaking at a Conservative breakfast in Brisbane, Agriculture Minister Warren Truss has backed Mr Howard.

"I think it's important that if Labor's got something to offer, that they put it on the table," he said.

"If they've got amendments that they want, let's see them, but what I want is to see this legislation passed promptly.

"It's due to come into effect on the 1st of January and farmers need those benefits from the 1st of January."

`

A few days ago it was "anti-American" to object to ANYTHING in the Free Trade Agreement. Now it's a game to see who can out manoeuvre who in the fight for elector hearts & minds being played out in the federal parliament. Let's see what happens over the next few days. Is John Howard about to rediscover Australia's interests? Are the polls telling him something?

Is anyone game to predict what's going to happen next on the PBA debate? For a wee bit Latham has the upper hand on the Free Trade Agreement. But come Monday, when he has to produce the details to support Labor's stance, what then?


As a correspondent to the Letters section to my local paper of choice said today: Why can't we have a FAIR Trade Agreement with the US?

Yes - the FTA thing has been a surprising non-asset for Howard - whoodathunk????

Interesting development & interesting timing ...


Military, diplomatic elite attack PMBy Michelle Grattan
August 8, 2004


A who's who of Australia's former military chiefs, departmental heads and top diplomats is set to launch a scathing attack on John Howard's foreign policy and call for "truth in government" from whichever party wins the election.

It is believed a statement from more than 40 former military and diplomatic officers will condemn Australia's commitment to the Iraq invasion as based on deception, and call for Australia to stop rubber-stamping US policies.
(Full article below.)


http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/08/07/1091732143101.html

`

Here's the full article ..

Military, diplomatic elite attack PM
By Michelle Grattan
August 8, 2004


A who's who of Australia's former military chiefs, departmental heads and top diplomats is set to launch a scathing attack on John Howard's foreign policy and call for "truth in government" from whichever party wins the election.

It is believed a statement from more than 40 former military and diplomatic officers will condemn Australia's commitment to the Iraq invasion as based on deception, and call for Australia to stop rubber-stamping US policies.

The gathering of names has been under way for weeks. Signatories are believed to include two former chiefs of the Australian Defence Force, Admiral Alan Beaumont and General Peter Gration, two former navy chiefs, Vice-Admiral Sir Richard Peek and Admiral Mike Hudson and a former air force chief, Air Marshal Ray Funnell.

On the list are also expected to be six former department heads: Paul Barratt (Defence), John Burton (External Affairs), Stuart Harris (Foreign Affairs), John Menadue (Prime Minister's Department), Alan Renouf (Foreign Affairs), and Richard Woolcott (Foreign Affairs).

The former heads of mission have represented Australia in all the major posts, including the US, China, Japan and Indonesia, as well as in Middle Eastern countries. Three former heads of mission to Iraq are believed to be on the list.

Prominent names from the intelligence community are expected to be Robert Furlonger, former director-general of the Office of National Assessments, and head of the Joint Intelligence Organisation (who was also ambassador to Indonesia); Gordon Jockel, former chairman of the National Intelligence Committee (who also served as ambassador to Thailand and Indonesia); and Roger Holdich, former director-general of intelligence (and ambassador to Korea).

The statement will be a blow for the Prime Minister, especially as it comes at the start of what could be the last week of Parliament before the election and amid speculation that Mr Howard could announce, in the next week, a poll for September 18. But a source in the group said it was not designed to be partisan - rather a call for whoever won the election to learn from the lessons of Iraq.

The sheer number of signatories and their prominence in the nation's diplomatic and military life of several decades give the declaration great weight.

The statement, although short, is certain to be blunt and comprehensive. It is expected to strongly condemn the misleading of the Australian people about the reasons for invading Iraq, and carry the message that if what the Australian Government says cannot be trusted by its own citizens, Australia cannot expect its word to be trusted internationally.

The signatories argue that the alliance relationship between Australia and the US, and the ANZUS treaty, are important but do not require Australia to consistently echo policies decided in Washington by the US Administration.
They believe the invasion and occupation of Iraq have led to an obvious increase in terrorism rather than the predicted decrease. The outcome has been to considerably raise Australia's profile as a terrorist target.

The group is also expected to call for the post-election government to review the balances in foreign and security policy to get a better weighting between the relationship with the US, regional engagement and Australia's role in the United Nations.

The declaration follows similar ones issued in the US and Britain criticising their governments.

This initiative is quite separate from the campaign "Not Happy, John" recently launched by former federal Liberal president John Valder.

Mr Valder's campaign is protesting against Mr Howard's Iraq and other policies, with the aim of trying to unseat him in Bennelong.

`

Amazing! And not a moment too soon! Howard's reaction will be very, very interesting. Will he manage to evade the issues this time?

`

"A who's who of Australia's former military chiefs, departmental heads and top diplomats is set to launch a scathing attack on John Howard's foreign policy and call for "truth in government" from whichever party wins the election. "

And Howard's reaction?: They're just a bunch of out of date old fogeys! This, from Mr 1950s himself!

Wow, Msolga!!!

I just copied excerpts of that article to the Australia and Iraq thread.

I'm wondering about the press coverage of national politics right now ...

* First, the statement from the former diplomatic & military heads, etc ... Howard & his minor back benchers have declared that their views are irrelevant. End of story? No further comment?

* Next Howard ACCEPTS Latham's changes to the pharmaceuticals section of the Free Trade Agreement with the US, declaring it "unnecessary", but he'll do it ever-the-less, to get the agreement through. This was THE big story last week. Suddenly not important.

So what's going on? Something's a bit fishy here ....

Too much Murdoch influence in the Oz media is the biggest problem. His news outlets are so right wing biased it's disgusting.

Yesagreed, Wilso, but The AGE? The ABC? Hmmmmmmm, I'm really perplexed!

Free Trade Agreement (with US) games:

PM outwitted by Latham
By Michelle Grattan
August 13, 2004
The Age


ANALYSIS


The weeks ahead, when the Americans examine the Australian legislation before finally ticking off the free trade agreement will tell whether John Howard has a point or is crying wolf. Yesterday, however, his argument that Labor's amendments to protect generic drugs just might blow away the deal appeared unconvincing. He looked like a man clutching for something to cover an ignominious retreat.

A couple of weeks ago Mr Latham was on the defensive. By yesterday, he had comprehensively outmanoeuvred the PM. Not only had he forced the Government to consider favourably Labor's proposals, he then stared it down when it later tried to water them down.

To make matters worse for Mr Howard, his claim yesterday that the Americans had "concerns" was not just contradicted by the Opposition but wasn't supported by the evidence the PM himself produced.
A message from US Special Trade Representative Robert Zoellick read by Mr Howard said only that the Americans reserved their right to assess whether the amendments were in line with the agreement.


Mr Howard will have his deal, but it has come with some nasty political stings. Mr Latham has been able to claim to be the protector of Australians' access to cheap drugs. His joke about the PM's talk of the deal's "spirit" and "atmospherics" sounding like the X-Files was an easy hit. In contrast, Mr Howard struggled to argue that the Labor amendments were both unnecessary and a possible deal breaker.

The FTA encounter has been an example not just of Mr Latham's tactical astuteness but of his willingness to take the political game to an end point, fearless of risks (including the risk of a backfire before the poll if the PM happened to be right.)

~