The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Howard's agenda behind the agendas? > Comments

Howard's agenda behind the agendas? : Comments

By Judy Cannon, published 7/12/2005

Judy Cannon argues that current legislation will lead to extending centralised government.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All
I guess the more we speak out against these changes the more we create our own safety in numbers. They can't jail us all surely.

I always knew Howard had his agenda. He went to great lengths to repackage himself as Mr Moderate before the ' 96 election and his wolf-in-sheep's-clothing disguise has been fooling the voters ever since. I think he knows now though that he won't be given another term so this really is his last hurrah. It's almost as though he's drunk on his own power at the moment. There's no stopping him.

Unfortunately, even when this little man is long gone and forgotten, his mean legacy to the nation will live on. And I doubt that too many of Howard's battlers will be left feeling relaxed and comfortable.
Posted by Bronwyn, Wednesday, 7 December 2005 11:52:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
An extension of centralisation – whether through IR legislation or other means – would not be a bad thing. We are over governed in Australia. Three levels of government and the number of snouts stuck in the trough for a population of 20 million is unwieldy and hideously expensive, not to mention confusing when it comes to differences in every day law between the states.

As for the ‘demolition’ of Medicare, we have been hearing this from left-wing commentators for years without any proof.

In her government bashing and conspiracy theorising, Judy Cannon offers one of her own - Ross Gittins – as a backup. We all know the political bent of the press and its acolytes. She uses only her own opinion and that of another reporter to justify her creeping centralisation harangue against the Government.

Nothing very authoritative or persuasive so far.

Then she looks to a foreign reporter writing about an incident in a foreign country. “Could this happen in Australia?” she asks. What? Hurricane Katrina? American “ballyhoo”? Or foreign labour laws affecting people with no legitimate counterparts in Australia, because new Australian labour law does not parallel US law?

An ‘odd bod’ Senator and the President of a politicised National Welfare Rights Network are her next allies. Then there are universities, described recently as nurseries for good little socialists, and also Stuart Macintyre who has had enough publicity about his lefty views to need no further description. Poor man is no longer able to present his own views as gospel.

Dear old Judy plods on after this, giving her already known view of terror legislation and sedition laws which she also wants us to fear as much as she and her colleagues claim to fear – on our behalf, of course.

Sadly for her, we knew that the IR laws were coming well before the last election, and we still returned the Howard Government. Most people want to be protected from terrorism and, by 2008, there will be different matters concerning the electorate.

Remember the ‘horrors’ of the GST put about by the lefty media.
Posted by Leigh, Wednesday, 7 December 2005 11:55:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is interesting to read that nothing moves in politics but three things.
Surely there is a new movement afoot or at hand or ahead or at the bottom line of politics that needs to be aired like IR.
The IR laws will concentrate centralist government.
Judy, with John Howard's agendas they are upfront agendas so there needs to be nothing behind them except the process to centralise power.
Once a person has power it becomes addictive as heroin. They always need more power no matter how much power they have. There was an inkling of this power-hungry mindset in "Watergate" and the President Nixon affair. Nixon needed so much power he tape-recorded telephone conversations of staff in the White House and that lead to "Watergate".
Judy, what you need to do is to write a “seditious" article, whatever that is, and see if it gets published this year, and forget this article. There is a TV ad that refers to "the family" and then says "whatever that is". We all don't know what being "seditious" is until it is tested and judged by the government.
That way we will all know just what "seditious' means. The word "seditious" means nothing until the government intepret something as seditious. It is not up to us to interpret something as "seditious". The government forbids us that right.
Remember the book by George Orwell and the opening line: "It was a bright cold clear day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen."
The clocks were striking thirteen because the Government said they were striking thirteen and everything that the government said was fact. We in Australia are beginning that period of the thirteenth hour.
Posted by GlenWriter, Wednesday, 7 December 2005 3:39:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leigh & GW, I had made a promise to myself, not to insult anyone, which with statements you two have just made, is becoming increasingly difficult. If you have a point please make it, DON'T SHOOT THE MESSENGER, you two are obviously on good incomes, and good luck to you. There is a different reality for many of us, trying to make ends meet, in an increasingly harsh and unforgiving country. Take a friend of mine for example, he is a shopassistant at a take away liquor outlet, earns approx $38,000 per year, works shift work, all days including weekends, has three children and a wife to support. If you think life is easy for that family, think again, by the time bills are paid, there is nothing left, for doctor's bills, who increasingly don't bulk bill, so it is off to the local hospital emergency ward and a 10 hour wait. They are not spendthrifts, and certainly not out of the ordinary, in fact what sort of remuneration do you two think a shopassistant, a clerk, a labourer, a checkout lady, a service station attendent etc, make. You see these people in your everyday lives, do you hold them in contempt, because if you do, it is a large part of the population, which fits into this bracket. I was a purchasing officer on slightly higher pay, but none the less have struggled for all of my life, I have worked very hard, done the unpaid overtime without thanks and the whole exploitation deal. I do not begrudge you your positions in life, why the hell do you begrudge us ours. We have done our best, if our best is not good enough for you two pillars of society, well that's tough. Try to find a bit of compassion in your hearts for your fellow man, you may be surprised, it will be returned a hundred fold.
Posted by SHONGA, Wednesday, 7 December 2005 6:23:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree Shonga.

I think the begrudging of the more fortunate people comes from that dopey mentality that’s so rife in the US: If you’re poor, then it’s your fault!

Forget unavoidable life circumstances.
Forget that you weren’t born to a wealthy family.
Forget that you may have had a traumatic childhood that helped screw-up your education.

No. It’s YOUR FAULT. So you can’t complain you lazy, whining, good-for-nothing commie! Go hug a tree or save a whale.

But seriously, this “It doesn’t affect me so I don’t care” attitude of the more fortunate in life sickens me to no end. The immense selfish, cold-heartedness of that attitude is proof that money blackens people’s hearts.

One of Leigh’s comments on another thread…

“I am of one of the few who is getting what he wants in the way of Federal Government. Nah nah na nah nah!”

…made me feel sick. The fact that someone could poke fun at the potential suffering of the needier people in the county – who's finances and family life will be crippled under IR “reforms” - is appalling.

More on the topic though, I’ve always been aware of the more sinister side of Howard’s agenda. The only thing that keeps me in Australia - despite the conservative revolution that we’re going through at the moment - is the thought that everything works in cycles. Only these days, the cycles seem to move quicker.

We are merely going back to the days before the Union movement; the days where we refer to our bosses as Master; the days where bladders will rupture because of a 12 hour shift with no toilet break (Yes - that did actually happen).

But once this country is fed-up, however long it takes, there will eventually be a revolution, a revolt that will bring things back to the way they are – the way they should be.
Posted by Space Cadet, Wednesday, 7 December 2005 7:29:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What Judy Cannon must realise is that as society changes so to will its institutions. With regard to the IR changes, are we to presume that the ACTU has a cachet which is so unique that society will cease to exist if it isn't there to represent workers? The ACTU is earning the reputation of a Canute, now rendered impuissant because of falling membership.

And to see lawyers and other progressives from the Left aligned with the clergy is pure theatre. Usually it is the Left which denounces christianity and the clergy as being out of touch. And how odd that the family is mentioned in the IR fight. Isn't it the family that the Left wishes to destroy. And if a worker needs to be with his family why isn't the Catholic church happy to see that girl living in Tasmania return to her father in Colombia?

Dare we turn off the grants' tap and stifle research in the humanities? Why don't we make a grant to any member of the academic world who will research and report on the right to free speech for anyone with the name of 'professor Andrew Fraser'.

Barrister Ian Barker is right to express his views (a 'right' not available to Andrew Fraser) on sedition but we should resist his attempt at ipsedixitism. Other barristers who work for the taxpayer hold a different view but haven't taken to letter writing as yet.
Posted by Sage, Wednesday, 7 December 2005 11:32:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy