The Shotgun Blog
« Schreiber requests a few days to get his story straight . . . | Main | Canadian Socialism: Failing the Sick and Poor »
Saturday, November 24, 2007
Australia Election: Howard Behind
The exit polls have got John Howard down. Now the results are coming in. We'll see.
For some reason, the words of Edward Gibbon come to mind:
Under a democratical government the citizens exercise the powers of sovereignty; and those powers will be first abused, and afterwards lost, if they are committed to an unwieldy multitude.
According to those same exit polls, 8% of Australians voted with "Climate Change" as the top issue. Good God almighty. For our fate to be entrusted to people such as this.
I'm going to liveblog this, at least for a few hours. Watch after the jump.
The actual numbers look slightly better than the exits. I don't know. It's worth recalling that the Coalition won with 49% of the vote in 1998. (11:55PM PST).
Right now there are eighty-one of one hundred and fifty seats with projected winners, according to ABC. To date, they're recording roughtly a 4.5% swing to Labor. They've got five projected seats swinging towards Labor, to date. They need sixteen to win. If the present trend holds, the Liberals might still have a chance. On Sky (live video here) they say that if Labor doesn't sweep New South Wales, it might come down to Western Australia. (12:14AM PST)
91 of 150 sets called so far. Labor with a pick-up of seven. They need a gain of an extra nine at this point, in the remaining fifty-nine seats (or a switch of those called). I think that it's going to be pretty close from the look of it. (12:26 PST).
It looks like it's going to come down to Queensland and Western Australia. (12:34AM)
62-44, with forty-four seats left to call. Labor needs a pick-up of at least four (and they need to keep all of their own seats) in what's left to win. (12:44AM).
Howard seems to have lost his own seat. 108 seats called. Labor with a pick-up of eleven. They need a pick-up of five in the remaining forty-two, assuming everything else holds. It's interesting because, what's left - above all else Western Australia - seems to be an Australian Alberta. If it defies the national trend...
Looking at this, it might come down to one or two seats. I don't think this is going to be decided tonight. There's still postal votes, too. One wonders what happens in a tie. (12:54AM)
Well, I'm going to bed. It doesn't look too great. A very narrow Labor win. Two or three seats, would be my guess. Depending, I suppose, upon the post vote.
Though, Howard seems to be closing.
Damnit. Man, I hate peope. Good night. (1:15AM).
Posted by Adam T. Yoshida on November 24, 2007 in International Politics | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e54fa0430c8834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Australia Election: Howard Behind:
Comments
Howard seems to be in trouble in his own seat ...
Posted by: Jason Hickman | 2007-11-24 1:51:10 AM
According to those same exit polls, 8% of Australians voted with "Climate Change" as the top issue. Good God almighty. For our fate to be entrusted to people such as this.
It really make you wonder! I guess with the MSM onboard with " Climate Change" it has to eventually take effect on the people. I really hope the same does not happen here in Canada.
Posted by: George B | 2007-11-24 2:14:29 AM
At least people in Australia have the excuse that it's already warm there and even a mild heating might have serious effects. What are people in Thunder Bay worried about - that the winter might only last five and half months, instead of six?
Posted by: Adam Yoshida | 2007-11-24 2:23:39 AM
Well, well ... An 11-year LIEberal government is losing. Isn't that usually grounds for a party here?
Posted by: Roo | 2007-11-24 2:36:05 AM
At least people in Australia have the excuse that it's already warm there and even a mild heating might have serious effects. What are people in Thunder Bay worried about - that the winter might only last five and half months, instead of six?
Posted by: Adam Yoshida | 24-Nov-07 2:23:39 AM
Maybe they are concerned about a change of their life? Just because they don't live on a beach in the Caribbean doesn't mean people can't be concerned about climate change.
Assume for a moment it would get warmer, and that would be the only thing that changed, over the next few years species that couldn't have survived a winter before would migrate north, insects, pests etc. Including illnesses born by these creatures.
Dunno, do you want to have to worry about Malaria when you go to the beach in the summer?
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2007-11-24 3:08:50 AM
>"species that couldn't have survived a winter before would migrate north, insects, pests etc."
Snowrunner, we're talking about Australia here.
If species migrate North they are moving TOWARD the Equator.
Posted by: Speller | 2007-11-24 3:40:30 AM
You know, 3 years ago they said that to meet Canada's Kyoto commitment all Canadians would have to make a 40% reduction in all energy use.
That means that in 10 working days, people who drive have to take mass transit 4 out of those 10 days.
There isn't enough mass transit in Canada to transport that many more people IF it didn't mean that the buses and trains would have to sit idle 4 out of 10 days as well.
Lets say that winter runs from November through March. That's 5 months. Of those five months of winter Canadians couldn't run their furnaces or heaters in their home for 2 out of 5 of those months.
That was 3 years ago those estimates were made.
Canadians consume more energy now than they did 3 years ago.
Canada is taking in 500,000 new immigrants per year.
Posted by: Speller | 2007-11-24 3:55:30 AM
Well, they can't blame low voter turnout, Aussies must vote or pay a fine.
IMHO, it's not a good outcome for Australians.
Could be the "it's time for a change" syndrome was part of it.
Posted by: Liz J | 2007-11-24 7:09:40 AM
Speller,
Though I believe your number of 500,000 new immigrants per year is high (I think it's more like 300,000), you've hit the nail on the head when it comes to exposing the ultimate hypocrisy of the Envirofascists. If they were at all serious about reducing carbon emissions, pollution, etc., the first thing they would do is call for a moratorium on immigration. Instead, the Liberals, NDP and even the Greens call for our immigration intake to be INCREASED.
I've written to former Green leader Jim Harris about this contradiction but received no reply. What could they possibly say to justify such a ludicrous position? This is the hammer that we conservatives should use when asking Leftists about the environment: No serious environmental policy can ignore our disastrously high immigration rates. Any Greenie who doesn't support a drastic reduction in immigration is a fool and a hypocrite, period.
Posted by: JP | 2007-11-24 7:16:29 AM
It matters not what I think, but for what it's worth, I am rather sorry John Howard's party will not form government.
Any time you lose a like minded and staunch ally on the world stage, it's a sad day in world affairs.
The best hope is for the new government to stay the course on matters such as Afghanistan etc.
Posted by: Joe Molnar | 2007-11-24 7:37:14 AM
How long will it take the desperate Lib/Left lot in the House to comment and try to use this outcome against our Government's stance?
No doubt Dion is getting fired up to ask a question in QP on Monday. Perhaps the MSM will seek him out before that for his opinion. We know what it will be, people WANT KYOTO and want to stop fighting terrorism, yadda, yadda.
Posted by: Liz J | 2007-11-24 8:02:17 AM
I'm thinking that the new Australian PM, Kevin Rudd of Labour, will do with Kyoto what Chretien did with NAFTA in 1993. He'll promise to implement it but once he realizes that it actually requires, it will be quietly buried.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2007-11-24 8:29:23 AM
Wow this site came up when i was looking for world views of our election results, i'm guessing this is a conservative paper?
Your comments on climate change are selfish and express a narrow understanding of the issue. It's as if you think it will just be a little hotter and things will be fine, even better for you, without regard for the multitude of problems it will cause.
It wont spell doom for mankind, but it is going to impact the way everyone in the world lives, especially future generations. Im glad we Aussies are that 'kind of people', as we care about potential impacts on ourselves, our kids and others around the world.
Also if you are so worried about refugees, I wonder how you will feel when the number of environmental refugees increases, those displaced from areas that are no longer habitable? Canada sure would be a nice cool new home.
Im glad Australians voted in Labour for the CC issue, but really the major issue was that the Government introduced workplace laws that stripped workers rights.
Must say I always thought Canada left-wing country.
Posted by: Aussie K | 2007-11-24 9:29:37 AM
"Must say I always thought Canada left-wing country."
Happy to disappoint you. Many of us are Albertans, where the Left thoroughly discredited itself in the 1970s under the Trudeau era. Thank goodness we did because of that horrible tyrants' crimes like the 1970 Invasion of Quebec and the National Energy Program.
I oppose Kyoto because it is an unworkable solution. Increasing taxes and sending the money to China or India or other developing nations is simply unsustainable. There's no enforcement to see that the money is being properly used. Worse, there's no potential limit to how much tax money will have to be used. There are other more important things like health care, education, infrastructure and the military, which must be addressed.
Perhaps the worst part of Kyoto was the granting of exemptions to Ontario's auto industry. Not only would that cripple any climate change initiative, it also symbolized the corruption within the Liberal and NDP parties. If Kyoto was to be implemented with those exemptions, Alberta - where much of Canada's oil and gas is produced - would have to secede as a matter of self-defense. The leaders of those parties would be brought up on charges of corruption and violation of human rights - namely for favoring one group over another. Kyoto is a fiasco and never should even have been considered let alone implemented. Another way can and will be found, one that does not bankrupt the country or favor special interests.
Howard was right to reject Kyoto, as I'm sure Rudd will soon find out. If there are other issues, then maybe it was time for Howard to go. But on Kyoto, he was correct.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2007-11-24 9:43:38 AM
Man-made Globull Warming is the biggest hoax and scam ever perpetrated on Mankind in the history of the world. It is being used by worldwide socialists to bring down the free-enterprise system and to bolster Communist regimes like China to the detriment of the USA.
The UN is behind this of course, since the pipeline of funds from the Oil For Food Scandal has been ruptured.
Posted by: obc | 2007-11-24 10:46:59 AM
In the times of dinosaurs, when the climate was hotter and wetter than it is today ....
Posted by: set you free | 2007-11-24 10:53:25 AM
Now that Kyoto has been both discredited and abandoned, truly effective climate change measures can now be taken. How ironic!
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2007-11-24 11:14:40 AM
Two points:
1. If Canada had mandatory voting in elections, the conservatives would not ever have a chance. There is no lazier pack of lethargic loafers who won't get of the arse to go vote than the left.
2. Carbon reduction is all hot air (no pun) because when it comes down to money out of the pocket there is no left or right and no will to hand it over. The Left talks it up nicely because they think it only the rich who will need to cough it up.
Don't worry, if the world warms a bit, we will adapt and more likely benefit from it. If cools, which appears to be more likely, Then there will be rapid population reduction and much harder time which will suit the people and prosperity haters ... for awhile.
Posted by: John | 2007-11-24 11:35:50 AM
Just on the radio that the Labor Party won big and Howard is likely to lose his seat.
A brilliant win for Socialism, Ignorance and Islam.
Posted by: John | 2007-11-24 12:36:58 PM
Rudd said that he supports the war in Afghanistan and would only remove combat troops from Iraq, so Islam doesn't win much. If only the Liebral and Dipper parties had as much sense.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2007-11-24 3:19:52 PM
Zeb ~
And guess what! Iraq is winding down now - with Al Qaeda on the run, but especially in Baghdad.
So the Aussies will be leaving at a time when they are no longer needed. The US today also announced the withdrawal of 5,000 troops from Iraq.
SO THERE!
Posted by: obc | 2007-11-24 3:29:56 PM
obc: good, more troops to be sent to fight the real war in Afghanistan. NATO can finally get the reinforcements it needs to crush the Taliban once and for all, and hopefully capture or kill OBL himself.
Oh it would be sweet to capture him - then see Mayor (President?) Giuliani himself beat the crap out of him as payback for the 343 FDNY, 23 NYPD, 37 PAPD and 2,400 other innocent people who died on 9/11.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2007-11-24 3:34:15 PM
Maybe they'll place him in stocks in NYC and let everyone take a whack at him! (Except for caring Leftoids, of course, who'd consider this "cruel and unusual punishment".)
Personally, I'd consider this "cool and unusual punishment"!
I'd visit New York, just for the privilege of waiting for my turn in line.
Posted by: obc | 2007-11-24 3:41:05 PM
Nah let just Rudy do it, on behalf of everyone.
I lived in NYC before 9/11 - visit anyway, it's a great city. WAY better than Toronto, which has become a truly pathetic place - dirty, disgusting, violent, and extremely racist.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2007-11-24 3:50:29 PM
Remember the Leftoid hullabaloo about Musharaf and Pakistan last week? Anyone want to place a bet on how soon they will protest this action? :
"Kasparov Jailed for 5 Days"
(Moscow) — Former chess champion Garry Kasparov was convicted of leading an opposition protest and sentenced to five days in jail by a Moscow court Saturday.
Kasparov and dozens of other demonstrators were detained hours earlier after riot police clashed with Kremlin opponents following a protest rally that drew several thousand people.
The former chess champion was forced to the ground and beaten, his assistant Marina Litvinovich said in a telephone interview from outside the police station where Kasparov was held.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1687284,00.html
NO TAKERS ON THE WAGER??? I am so surprised!
Posted by: obc | 2007-11-24 4:05:57 PM
Did anyone see the spectacular Arkansas-LSU game last night? Arkansas won it in triple overtime 50-48, in perhaps the game of the year. LSU was ranked #1.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2007-11-24 4:09:43 PM
And in other Soviet - I mean, Russian - news:
"Russian opposition candidate dies of gunshot wounds"
An opposition party candidate who was shot by unidentified gunmen in the entryway of his apartment building in a southern Russian republic died Saturday of his wounds, his party said.
Farid Babayev, a Yabloko party candidate in Russia's Dec. 2 parliamentary elections, was shot late Wednesday in Makhachkala, the capital of Dagestan. Doctors said he was shot four times, including at least once in the head.
DeYawn should be grateful he isn't the opposition leader in Moscow, eh?
Posted by: obc | 2007-11-24 4:38:26 PM
Zebulon Pike -Did anyone see the spectacular Arkansas-LSU game last night? Arkansas won it in triple overtime 50-48, in perhaps the game of the year. LSU was ranked #1.
Did you watch the "Bayou Classic"?, the game between the black universities Grambling and Southern. Are there any black universities in Ontario?
Posted by: O'REILLY | 2007-11-24 4:46:36 PM
Yoshi - For some reason, the words of Edward Gibbon come to mind:
Under a democratical government the citizens exercise the powers of sovereignty; and those powers will be first abused, and afterwards lost, if they are committed to an unwieldy multitude.
Nice try Yoshi. Gibbon was referring to extending citizenship to non-Romans which eventually resulted in an imperial system.
Having just returned from Oz I can tell you that people were simply tired of Howard. The Liberals could possible have won or made it closer if Howard had retired and let a new, younger leader take over.
Posted by: O'REILLY | 2007-11-24 4:58:16 PM
...so Howard lost. Australia is looking for a different course change.
I hope they do well, but me thinks, they'll join the metrosexual revolution of society and become and plum picking for Islamic extremists.
Posted by: tomax7 | 2007-11-24 6:13:11 PM
Two comments of mine follow this NY Slimes mention:
"Bush Ally Defeated in Australia"
SYDNEY, Australia — Australia’s prime minister, John Howard, one of President Bush’s staunchest allies in Asia, suffered a comprehensive defeat at the hands of the electorate on Saturday, as his Liberal Party-led coalition lost its majority in Parliament.
FIRST OF ALL, did the Slimes use the name "Bush" in their articles about the changes in power in France & Germany recently? OF COURSE NOT!
Secondly, the Slimes should know that Australia is NOT on the continent of Asia. But I guess it's asking too much for these "educated" journalists to know the 7 continents. It's enough that they are Leftoids, right?
Posted by: obc | 2007-11-24 6:21:15 PM
obc - FIRST OF ALL, did the Slimes use the name "Bush" in their articles about the changes in power in France & Germany recently? OF COURSE NOT!
With Sarkozy, Bush May Find a Close Friend in France
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/07/world/europe/07cnd-france.html?ex=1336190400&en=96f6c3c3179b6dd3&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
Posted by: O'REILLY | 2007-11-24 6:35:36 PM
I thought this was a satirical site! You bunch of ignorant red-necks. Mark
Posted by: mark | 2007-11-24 6:49:15 PM
And Germany, O'Gotcha?
Posted by: obc | 2007-11-24 7:08:46 PM
mark ~
Go visit a more welcoming site where you can have a circle jerk with your Leftoid comrades.
Posted by: obc | 2007-11-24 7:23:37 PM
Mark ~
Go visit a more welcoming site for a circle jerk with your Leftoid "comrades"!
Posted by: obc | 2007-11-24 7:25:51 PM
Howard projected the positive can-do voice of freedom and self confidence which was easy to associate with Australia. He will certainly be missed.
A union-labor guy worrying about global warming is almost incomprehensible as the voice of Australia, but it has been my sad understanding the they have a vocal homosexual and leftist (e.g. gun control) population, which with this election victory just totally changes the perception of almost anything anyone "knew" about those seemingly rough and ready folks. Yuck!
Posted by: Conrad-USA | 2007-11-24 7:32:33 PM
During a visit to a mental asylum obc asked the Director 'how do you determine whether or not a patient should be institutionalized. 'Well' said the Director ' we fill up a bathtub, then we offer a teaspoon, a teacup and a bucket to the patient and ask him or her to empty the bathtub'.
'Oh, I understand' said obc ' a normal person would use the bucket because it's bigger than the spoon or teacup'.
'No' said the Director 'a normal person would pull the plug!.
obc, do you want a bed near the window?'
Posted by: O'REILLY | 2007-11-24 7:32:59 PM
O'Gotcha ~
Not if you are anywhere nearby.:)
Posted by: obc | 2007-11-24 7:35:04 PM
Conrad-USA - but it has been my sad understanding the they have a vocal homosexual and leftist (e.g. gun control) population
You might want to check what John Howard's position on gun control is before you make yourself look totally clueless.
Posted by: O'REILLY | 2007-11-24 7:42:14 PM
O'Gotcha is at his "I feel superior" games again tonight. What a pleasure he must be to those close to him - if there are any.
Kinda reminds me of that girl in "Leave It To Beaver" who constantly tries to show everyone up - and has no friends of her own, due to her haughtiness of character.
Posted by: obc | 2007-11-24 7:46:58 PM
The most frustrating, and almost vulgar, aspect of modern day conservatism is that one must conform to a 'pre-packaged' set of criteria in order to fit the 'in-group'. Allow me to explain.
I consider myself conservative and on the right of the political spectrun believing in supremacy individual liberty, rule of law, and as small as possible government. Beyond this there ought to be variations in beliefs of conservatives. However, what you find instead is the 'pre-packaged' views. For example, readers/bloggers on this site feel that in order to call onself right-wing/conservative, apart from the above attributes, they must also have complete disregard and disrespect for the evironment. I don't know which conservative crackpot came up with this view, but respecting our planet and our environment in no way contradicts the precepts of conservatism.
Thus I wish people started thinking for themselves, and not like a herd. That is, applying conservative values to life situations, as opposed to simply memorizing what a right-winger 'should' think vis-a-vis an issue, and simply blurting it out robotically; for example, "I'm conervative, therefore, global warming good, Kyoto bad, environmental protection bad, etc"
Posted by: Patriot | 2007-11-24 9:00:15 PM
obc - thanks for confirming my opinion, twice
Posted by: mark | 2007-11-24 10:42:11 PM
I never thought the day would come that I would be sad to see a Liberal lose an election...but I am definitely sad to see Howard go. I hope those Aussies know what they are doing.
Posted by: Markalta | 2007-11-25 12:34:29 AM
O'Reilly, I think that the Gibbon quote was apt in several respects.
First of all, the point - and it's an obvious one - that Howard lost simply because a small percentage of voters felt in an abstract sense that it was, "time for a change" shows exactly what can happen when the vote is extended to "unwieldly multitudes." When democracy becomes government by the whim of the uninformed, it's a prescription for disater.
Second, the Roman example is even more apt in that, a number of the Coaltiion's losses (Bennelong being a notable example) were attributed to what the Australian media euphamistically referred to a "demographic changes." In context, we all know to what that refers.
Posted by: Adam Yoshida | 2007-11-25 12:50:30 AM
For example, readers/bloggers on this site feel that in order to call onself right-wing/conservative, apart from the above attributes, they must also have complete disregard and disrespect for the evironment. I don't know which conservative crackpot came up with this view, but respecting our planet and our environment in no way contradicts the precepts of conservatism.
Posted by: Patriot | 24-Nov-07 9:00:15 PM
Hi Patriot,
yes, I would say you can be a conservative and care for the environment, but "conservatives" these days (and that includes the Western Standard) aren't about conservatism, they are about "conservativsm", also known as Neo-Con and big business.
It's not about improving people's lives, today's "conservatives" are about "me me me". Just read obc's posts to get an idea, it is the generation that was brought up by parents who considered their kids the center of the universe and did whatever they could to make them happy. The idea that maybe it's not such a great idea to drive the SUV down to the mailbox is considered an "infringment on personal liberties", while at the same time there is huge applaus if the Police tasers / maims / kills people that the "conservatives" consider an enemy to their way of life.
Kafka couldn't have written a better satire on daily life in 21st Century North America.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2007-11-25 2:02:14 AM
It is a very sad day for Australia - I went to look at the per cent change - it is soo small 5.8 % gain for Labour, 5% drop for Liberals. The Liberals still control the ELECTED senate so things could be worse....I feel a personal loss since I know and like many Australians and I am a big fan of Mr. Howard. I will miss him on the world stage - so will the rest of the people of the Free world!
Posted by: jema54j | 2007-11-25 2:08:21 AM
OK - there are a lot of clueless people on this blog. So clarification is required.
The Australian Labor Party (ALP) has won the third biggest change of government victory in Australia since WW2. Australia is a politically cautious country which is extremely stable. Changes of government in Aust are a huge deal.
John Howard's government claimed "economic responsibility" but in reality practised what is termed "big government conservatism". They had become the highest taxing government in Australia's history, with massive expenditures. Of course, these expenditures were out of a significant surplus, but a consensus was building through the campaign that even spending within a surplus was putting pressure on inflation and interest rates.
Two weeks before the end of the campaign the Reserve Bank of Australia raised interest rates .25%.
Howard then, at his campaign launch, pledged a further $10 billion in spending. Rudd, two days later (at his launch) refused to match that, stating clearly that "this reckless expenditure must stop!". He gained a lot of respect for his economic responsibility.
Rudd is a practisting Christian, economically conservative (rationalist) and socially moderate (not conservative or progressive). Basically a Blair type, 10 years on. There are considerable similarities there. Rudd hasn't actually outlined a clear third way type position, but that has more with his preference for stating policy in clear pragmatic terms, rather than broad sweeping generalities.
Rudd will withdraw Australian forces from Iraq, but will continue (and even possibly increase) their involvement in Afghanistan.
Rudd has been much more hawkish on Iran than Howard ever was.
ON the gun control thing - Howard implemented gun laws as strict as those in Europe back in 1996.
Finally - the Liberals are now out of power Federally in Australia, and in EVERY state and territory. The highest ranking Liberal in Australia is the Lord Mayor of Brisbane. John Howard has lost his seat - and not narrowly. Peter Costello, former Treasurer and "heir apparent" has announced that he does not want the Liberal leadership.
John Howard led the Liberals into hard right territory, and straight into political oblivion. They will not be in power again Federally for a very, very long time, if ever.
Politics has completely changed in Australia and if people are really genuinely interested it would pay to actually try to understand modern Labor politics and not just work with naive characatures.
Posted by: Dave | 2007-11-25 4:30:48 AM
Our freaking media here will make a lot of Howard's defeat you can be sure of that. They had him lined up with Bush as our PM's friend and ally and on the same page which of course in their tiny Leftist minds was a bad thing.
The Aussies will find out in due course what they've done to themselves electing Rudd.
He may belie what we define as Labor much as Tony Blair did in Britain in many ways. Just as Howard was farther right than Liberalism as we define it.
Rudd is the dude who was caught on You Tube chowing down on a wad of earwax he had picked out of his ear while sitting in his seat in Parliament
a while back. Just a little trivia!
Posted by: Liz J | 2007-11-25 5:07:00 AM
The Australian election was fought overwhelmingly on domestic issues. It is true that involvement in Iraq was opposed by the majority of people, but it was in 2004 also (when it didn't lead to a change of government).
As I wrote above - Rudd is strongly supportive of involvement in Afghanistan, and has been much more hawkish on Iran (to the point of outright hostility).
Another interesting piece of trivia - under Howard's watch prior to the 2003 invasion the Australian Wheat Board sent $300,000,000 to Saddam Hussein - bribes which broke the embargo against Iraq. This was investigated in a commission of inquiry and several people within the wheat board were found to be culpable, but have not been charged. The commission of inquiry was prevented by the terms of reference from investigated alleged involvement by government departments or members of the government itself.
So while a lot is made of Howard being Bush's ally, its not that simple. The wheat board scandal turned a lot of people off the Howard government.
Posted by: Dave | 2007-11-25 5:36:56 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.