🚀 go-pugleaf

carolk@coombs.anu.edu.au writes:

>The Senate has been uniformly bagged for not reflecting popular
>opinion by passing the Andrews Bill, with the outcome being
>reflected as bipartisan. However, according to David Aldridge,
>letters editor for the Herald Sun, in the House of Reps, '..just
>13 per cent of Liberals voted against the (Andrews) Bill! For the
>Nationals it was 11 per cent, the CLP (NT Liberals) 100 per cent, 
>the ALP 43 per cent and Independents 20 per cent.'

Interesting stats.
So, to extrapolate, if the ALP occupied ALL seats, the Andrews Bill
would have still passed with a 7% majority.

And (to stretch credibility to the limit) a Parliament full of Independants
would have approved anti-euthanasia legislation by 80%.

When are you going to stop trying to punish the Libs for what was obviously
general support for a private members Bill put up, coincidentally, by
a Liberal MP and co-sponsored by a member of the ALP ?

>This pattern in the Reps clearly shows that the majority of the
>Coalition was either completely out of step with public opinion,
>or it was a sham 'conscience' vote. 

Or the sort of people who tend towards the Liberal, National and
Independant avenues of political expression tend to find euthanasia
more repulsive to their individual consciences than those on the
ALP side.

While, as much as David Moss 
>is *certain* to protest otherwise, the ALP's voting pattern in
>the reps does appear to reflect a conscience vote. 

I agree wholeheartedly. I saw nothing unusual in the way the Reps vote
panned out. Without checking back I am fairly sure it was in line with
my original projections.

In particular,
>when one considers the Liberal Party's manifesto of standing for
>'A lean government that minimises interference in our daily lives and
>maximises individual initiative,' the Coalition's voting pattern
>on THIS Bill, in the Reps, stands in stark contradiction!

How so ?
Suicide is an "individual right" and we still have it.
Euthanasia, on the other hand, is a specific right afforded to one
small subset of our society, with regard to their actions concerning
another small subset of our society.

Unless you intend to argue that euthanasia was going to become part of 
our daily lives, or that euthanasia is somehow an individual initiative
when at least two people are involved, I really can't see how the
principles you quoted have been contradicted.

>The Coalition, and supporters like David Moss, would prefer this
>not be widely known, because, if it were, the real anger a
>lot of people feel might be targetted at the Coalition in
>the ballot box, as opposed to harmlessly diffused across The
>Senate generally, as it now seems to be. It remains to
>be seen whether this stays in the 'fool most of the people
>most of the time' category.

If I didn't want Liberal principles known, why would I go out of my
way to serve them to the world on the Internet ?

http://www.liberal.org.au/MEMBERSHIP/what.htm for those who are interested.

>Whether it does or not, the Coalition and 'wowsers' currently
>seems to be synonymous!

I guess that explains why those who care will still be able to amuse
themselves with non-violent erotica, after yesterday's cabinet decision
on the topic. face it Carol, you are just cheesed off with the results of
a true conscience vote and your casting around for a scapegoat.

David Moss,
personal opinion only.
http://www.adfa.oz.au/~adm/politics for unbiased Oz politics resources.