The coaliton has control of the Senate (1 Viewer)

[david88]

John Howard and his men will take control of the Senate in July. He will control both the houses. Does this mean he can do whatever he wants as long as it is within the constitution like raising HECS and Taxes?

 

[dimzi]

the only thing im worried about is telstra!!

sell it now for $20billion, or wait 20 years and hav accrued dividends of $25billion!

so stupid....

 

[Enlightened_One]

As far as a I know he'll pretty much have the ability to do what he likes.

Since Liberals hold the majority in both opposition from outside the party isn't a threat. As long as the Liberal party doesn't have a domestic they'll get through all the laws they like.

The Governor General could do something but unless Howard opts for something unbelievably outrageous nothing he will do nothing. And I mean something outrageous. Who is the latest GG? And is he one of Howard's supporters, which I suspect so?

It is too much right wing power though. There ought to be a balance with the majority of the power resting on the independents. Thus, in theory, it forces the government to tailor the laws in such a way to win over people outside their control and makes the laws more equitable? accomodating? (I'm looking for the right word).

Still, the Liberals will want to be voted in next election so that may dampen some of their drastic ideas.

No party should hold both houses, or even more than half in each house. It gives them too much power.

Anyone, especially Law or politics students feel free to disagree and correct me.

 

[Enlightened_One]

When I started writing this post their were no replies. Serves me right for having the window open for five minutes before I even read the thread.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

What exactly is wrong with privatising health care, as long as there is a government body regulating it?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Yea i basically agree with ur post.

 

[rantman]

Unions have no power Asquithian? Ur rite about them not going down without a fight. If they organise nationwide-unified industrial action it will bring employers to there knees. What can they do?! Bring in immigrants to replace aussie workers? NO they cant. Unions and workers can kill this country's economy. Forget AIRC and its AWA and enterprise bargaining rulings because if 2 million ppl go on strike are they going to rule that illegal and lock out 20% of the workforce? Howard is in for a fight if he dares take on the workers: Wharfies 1998.

 

[loquasagacious]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Asquithian again.

 

[berghousemaa]

Asquithian is right. It's why Latham lost so heavily. No one wants to be seen as needing a helping hand anymore. Union membership is in serious decline because people rarely associate themselves with the lower classes. Unions are built on negativity, they needed to advertise themselves as positive in the early 90's.

 

[loquasagacious]

They need to more heavily promotye and co-ordinate.

A simple step being a union serach on the ACTU website which would allow workers to more easily find union by simply entering their type of work/workplace and the engine coming up with a suitable union a link to it's hoem page and a suitable blurb and a facility to ask to a union rep/recruiter to come to the site/contact someone who was interested in joining.

 

[berghousemaa]

How do you mean co ordinate? DO you mean diferent unions, say miners and builders?
And you're right about promotion but what I was saying about positive and negative I think is important. They can't market themselves by saying yuo need us because otherwise you'll be oppressewd, (generalised and simplified but you get it), rather appeal to the aspirational.

 

[loquasagacious]

Well its now common for people to have several jobs often in different fields unions should be more set up so that a unionist can easily join tyhe union at their new place of work/unionise it themselves.

 

[Cyan_phoeniX]

John Howard is groovy, although him having powers in the senate is bad because he might also be a Sithlord.

 

[Riewe]

As a howard and liberal supporter, at the moment anyway because i see them as being better controllers of this countru than the labor party, i am quite excited about this majority. Because the majority of Australians support Howard and his policies, thus the convincing win October, then it stands to reason that the people want changes. And thus now Howard can fulfill all his promises that he made without needing to adjust them to appease those parties without the support that Howard does.

And i don't think that he'll abuse this power, as i do trust them not to do anything stupid, such as increasing the GST to 25%, so as long as they pass the policies that they have already promised, then everything should be alright.

 

[2sense]

I'd rather have a power struggle between the parties than one party having a lot of power. That way they'll probably do what the public wants because of the fear of their butts getting kicked in the next election.

 

[Riewe]

What were john Howard's policies in the election?

I DON'T believe the people voted for the destruction of unfair dismissal laws, the sale of telstra and the repealing of cross medial ownernship laws, a user pays heath and education system, the lopping of old growth forest, record private debt and a massively bad balance of payments.

I Do believe they voted for cash handouts and the status quo and fear of interest rates rises.

At the time of the election, i knew of their plans to scrap unfair dismissal for small businesses, a possible sale of Telstra, to look at and probably alter cross media laws, less government support for health and education, continue forestry, but didn't know about private debt and balance payments, simply because they were not issues related to the election, and neither are they really big issues now.

And I did not vote for cash handouts (increasing welfare and dependence on government is wrong), thus i didn't vote labor.

And i did not vote on the basis on interest rates rising, as i know that it didn't matter who won the election, IR would rise. It is always dynamic, rises and lowers and rises and lowers, and the government can't make the rates stay where they are, but at least they can try.

 

[Riewe]

Private debt is just that. Private. The government cannot automatically change the way private people spend their money. But they can change public debt. And with almost no foriegn debt, then the government has done thier job.

As for what i voted for is: changes to unfair dismissal laws for small business, HECS increases, strong stance on national security, continued economic growth, continued reduction in jobless rate, no to labor's handout mentality.

 

[Generator]

But what did the majority (in a preferential sense) vote for? The Coalition may have a mandate in some sense, but the scale of their 'victory' did not grant the government a blank cheque for reform...

 

[Riewe]

What about Howard Handouts? The welfare payments he handed out this election?

At least it wouldn't have cost as much as free health care for over 75's, as in their Medicare Gold plan. And as for Howard's handouts, they go to all members of the community, or at least up to high income. This is in contrast to labor's plans for giving money to people who don't do anything. As in aboriginal handouts, when they should be encouraged to earn money, rather than just expect it to land on their lap.

And another reason was the Carr government really messing up NSW. And i know that State and Federal politics are different, but Latham's refusal to even acknowledge that, and also in the Orange Grove affair, when he said it was a Sate issue, but most of the people affected would be in his electorate of Werriwa. If he doesn't care about his electorate, then what chance about caring for the country?

 

[Riewe]

Perhaps my view is that it is common knowledge that people of aborginality are more likely to be unemployed, very poor at school etc., where the only solution given is to give them money and that should do them good. But i admit here that both Liberal and Labor are both as guilty as each in this, as through successive governments, this paternalistic approach has continued without success. But it did stem from the Whitlam years where paternalism seemed to be a major force behind his policies. And i would like to see the Howard Government do something about aborginial welfare, but handouts, as is currently the case is not right. While there should be at least a little financial assistance to help them up, there should be better community support and programs to integrate them into modern society.

But i still hold Labor slightly more responsible for this mess than the Coalition in this matter.