Thok wrote:Does the PM appoint when will the election held in 2007?
Yes, Thok, in consultation with his/her party. (Always a HE so far in OZ)
Usually after the end of the 2nd year, but I'm not sure of the actual "rules" (if they exist) regarding the length of time that needs to be served prior to choosing the time. Maybe some other Oz person here knows what the situation is?
Adrian wrote:Dlowan.
You're not allowed to ask questions about religion... but he's a very proud Catholic... what does it matter whether or not he went to see Archbishop Pell... anyway, why shouldn't he?
<petulant silence, stuck out bottom lip>
He went for spiritual guidance! :wink:
Well I'm not privy to inside information but I do know that persons such as Abbott , Pyne and Pell are typical Opus Dei fodder. This organisation which originated in Franco's Spain and has flourished under the fascist papacy of Jean Paul II is much more sophisticated than Santamaria's Catholic Action. It casts a world wide net and targets any institution which offers opportunities of social control.
.."
....
This is very frightening stuff, gozmo! As Deb said, it's the DLP ... In 2004!
Oh, there's going to be such a concerted attack on workers (say nothing of women, gays & god knows what other "offensive" minority groups.
Thanks for posting, but I feel quite wretched after reading it.
28. Every House of Representatives shall continue for three years from the first meeting of the House, and no longer, but may be soon dissolved by the Governor-General.
Note: the PM's ability to determine the election date results from the convention that the GG will take the advice of the PM.
http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/general/constitution/par3cha1.htm
msolga,
It may be a blessing in disguise. It represents a threat to the unity of the Liberal Party and many small L liberals will be as dismayed as yourself. Labour and other parties need to expose and exploit.
You know, gozmo, you may well be right! The Libs have such a big majority in both houses, so many extreme interest groups wanting extreme policies & actions .... It could well lead to in-fighting, power struggles & very public disarray. Thanks, I feel a bit better!
I couldn't resist putting this one in here, despite sending it to the previous thread. It's SO appropriate!
Santamaria time again boys and goils, eh?
Man - this crap is SOOOOOOO fifties...
It may just blow up in their faces, Deb. Many Libs would find this pretty weird **** for their party to be supporting, the "doctors' wives" for starters ... I'm hoping they have a great, big bun fight to sort out what they stand for!
This Pyne chap should have set up (yet another!) small, particular issue party, like the DLP was. He would have achieved much more, (not that I WANT him to!) & his ideas would not have been so closely scrutinized within Liberal ranks. And I'm guessing this will happen, when policy changes are muted. I mean, how far right can they go without losing supporters? I don't know if this is exactly what the "mortgage belt" folk quite had in mind, for starters .... But there will surely be dissent from liberal Liberals .... There must be quite a few who are finding it hard to live with the Liberal's policies and actions already. (For example, the assylum seekers sympathists.) This could well be more fuel for their discontent.
Here we go, folks! More "reforms"!. The universities, this time! Since when did winning an election mean that you have a "mandate" to do any little thing your heart desires?
:
University reforms are 'arrogant': Labor
November 2, 2004 - 11:48AM/the AGE
Plans by the government to use its majority in the Senate to push through more radical university reforms would be an arrogant misuse of power, Labor said today.
Education Minister Brendan Nelson has outlined plans for the Commonwealth to seize control of universities from the states and introduce controversial workplace agreements for academics.
Labor's education spokeswoman Jenny Macklin said the government had no mandate to introduce such changes given it had not outlined the plans before the federal election.
"The Howard government is planning to arrogantly misuse its Senate majority to implement radical changes to Australian universities that will hurt university staff, students and the Australian economy," she said.
"The Howard government made no mention of its radical plan during the election campaign.
"In fact, they didn't even release a higher education policy.".....
http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/University-reforms-are-arrogant-Labor/2004/11/02/1099262829192.html?oneclick=true
And also this related article:
States may lose control of unis
By Orietta Guerrera
Canberra
November 2, 2004
Australia's universities would become the sole responsibility of the Federal Government under a radical plan for states to surrender higher education powers.
Federal Education Minister Brendan Nelson says he has already had informal discussions with "senior people in one or two states" about Canberra taking full control of universities.
Discussing the plan in an interview with The Age, Dr Nelson accused the states of treating many universities as like "quasi" government departments and of restricting their ability to work with the private sector.
Under existing arrangements, the Commonwealth is responsible for public funding of higher education, but states retain a key role in running universities.
...
Dr Nelson confirmed that the Government would reintroduce legislation to lift restrictions on individual workplace contracts and casual employment in universities, and to abolish compulsory student unionism.
The Government was forced to abandon these proposals to get its higher education package passed last December, but from July 1 it will have the Senate majority it needs to pass the changes.
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/11/01/1099262786820.html?from=storylhs
Strike action threat over uni plans
Unions are threatening national strike action if the Federal Government pushes ahead with new workplace relations requirements for Australia's universities.
...Education Minister Brendan Nelson says he will use the Government's Senate majority from July 1 to pass changes previously held up in the Upper House.
They include an end to compulsory student unionism and a plan to extend the use of Australian Workplace Relations agreements. ....
(more)
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200411/s1232677.htm
Aargh! All the hidden aganda are coming out of the woodwork!!
And whwn I say hidden, I mean there is NO mandate (flawed in practice as that idea is) for the stuff they are coming up with.
One can only hope they lose the senate at the next half election. When is it?
if they don't - well, we are defeated for a generation.
i shall learn flower arranging, and take up opium.
No, no, no, no, Deb! We have to fix the Labor Party, not take up macrame! That should keep us busy for a few years! :wink:
.. and speaking of re-building Labor: Which directions should Labor take after such a devastating defeat at the election? Did anyone have the time to read Robert Manne's article which I posted yesterday? Very interesting. He suggested that the most voters are simply not interested in the issues that preoccupied Labor & the left during the campaign. And that there was little to be gained from trying to persuade those unwilling people during the current political climate ... Instead, he suggested lefties leave mainstream politics for a time & become more involved in sympathetic grassroots organizations. Here's a letter to the editor responding to Manne's article:
If manne is right, whither Labor?
I agree with Robert Manne's analysis of the post-election political landscape and the prescriptions he offers (Opinion, 1/11), subject to a couple of qualifications. These are that, if Manne is correct in arguing that Labor must move to the right in order to remain electorally viable, and that the advocates of causes associated with the liberal and radical-democratic left should abandon major party politics and give priority to extra-parliamentary activism in civil society, what will then be left of Labor's traditional identity and purpose? What new identity and purpose could Labor adopt as a result of its adopting Manne's prescriptions? What reason would there be for capable young people with progressive values to join, or remain in, such a party? The most obvious answers to these questions are bleak tidings for the left and its allies inside the ALP, which is why they are likely to prefer Barry Jones' advice to Robert Manne's, and fight tooth and nail against the course he has recommended.
-Paul Norton, Highgate Hill, Queensland
Like the writer of this letter, i'm more convinced by Barry Jones' (article in the previous Oz election thread). Jones argued that Labor was simply a less extreme right wing party than the Libs. (centre right, as opposed to far right) And that it was pointless for Labor to try to win converts by making itself as much like the Libs as possible. Instead, he argued that Labor needs to identify & promote it's own (left) agenda as an alternative to the Libs.
Do any of you have any thoughts about what Labor needs to do now?
I think & think about this.
What now? Where to next? All those issues that SHOULD have been on Labor's agenda during the campaign, but weren't. And now, I'm SO unhappy with Latham apologizing for this & that policy, withdrawing his statement about Oz troops in Iraq, his choices for the shadow cabinet ... surely the answer is not to move further right!?
