What we really voted for

[Violet_Crumble]

Australians gave John Howard unfettered power without any checks and balances.

Every now and then, something happens just to make the point, to ensure that you really understand how much things have changed. One of those moments came on Tuesday in Canberra during the swearing-in of the Howard Government's front bench.

Military man Michael Jeffery was appointed Governor-General by John Howard last year after public support for the previous appointee, Peter Hollingworth, collapsed. Jeffery is not someone we hear a lot from, which is how it should be with holders of the vice-regal office.

But we did hear a bit from Jeffery this week. This is how he greeted Howard as he commissioned the Liberal leader to form a government. "Prime Minister, heartiest congratulations . . ."

<snip>

Meanwhile, Howard has secured unfettered control of the Senate. Presumably, it will take a bit longer before the ramifications of this spectacular achievement are fully understood.

What it seems to mean is this: Australia has confirmed that it has set sail on a new political course, one where controversies over such things as propriety, ethics and honesty are likely to be dismissed - if they occur at all - as boutique sideshows, of little concern to the great mass of voters.

There seems to be no other way to interpret the October 9 election result. A great deal of the political debate since 2001 was devoted to the Prime Minister's handling of the children overboard incident, the threat of terrorism and, most important of all, the engagement in Iraq.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/10/29/1099028206529.html

[oscarmitre]

1. Yes I heard that

vomitous comment.

[Matilda]

2. And now they are threatening freedom of choice.

They did not campaign on changes to the abortion laws, but the
latest copycat legislation being mooted will do just that. This
will keep Families First happy - to ensure their support on changes
to the media ownership laws?