Posted on 06/01/2007 8:28:50 PM PDT by Aussie Dasher
PRIME Minister John Howard has received two standing ovations after telling Liberal Party faithful in Sydney that it's not time for a change in government.
Mr Howard used his address to a Liberal Party federal council breakfast this morning to spell out the difference between the coalition and Labor on social, foreign and economic policy.
With polls showing Labor heading for a landslide win over the 11-year-old government later this year, Mr Howard said Labor's main proposition was that it was time for a change.
"Now let me say in reply to that that it is never time for a change unless the change is for the better,'' Mr Howard said.
"And if the change is not for the better, then it is never just time for a change.''
Just as good economic policy was only a means to providing prosperity for people, not an end, change for change's sake was not a good outcome, Mr Howard said.
Mr Howard said that under the coalition, Medicare bulk-billing levels were at record highs, private health insurance had been revitalised and the right balance had been struck between public and private schools.
"Is that going to be made better by a change in government?'' he asked.
"Has the Labor Party offered anything in the area of health ... and in the area of education they are still struggling with the Latham legacy - the hit list.''
Mr Howard said his government had built the strongest relationship with the United States in Australian history while simultaneously forging a good alliance with China.
(Excerpt) Read more at theaustralian.news.com.au ...
Interesting that Howard represents the “liberal party”. And he is a conservative.
Like the “Peoples’ Republic” of China...
The Liberal Party was founded in 1946. “Liberal” meant something a little different in those days...
God bless PM Howard and Australia.
Hey AD you better report the result of Aussie elections ROFL
Right now I don’t know why I think of Foster beer commerical right now
Liberal & Conservative as we know them are only true in US borders, and are actually getting to be outdated terms. The Political Compass is actually a much better and more accurate system, but its system doesn’t lend itself well to discourse.
Like RINO-rudy, except for the WOT, this maggot is a GUN-GRABBING bureaucrat jack-booted-thug.
You, Sir, are talking through your arse!!!!!!!!
let me get this straight - are you referring to our PRIME MINISTER JOHN HOWARD?
You know, difficult as it may be for Americans to understand, gun rights aren’t really a major conservative issue in Australia. Our history is different, our experiences are different, and so this is not an issue that belongs to the conservative side of politics.
John Howard is a conservative. If he was an American, perhaps he would have to be pro-gun to wear that label. In Australia, he does not.
Come off it. Just cite your complaints, don’t get into name-calling. Howard is an outstanding man in at least two respects — WOT and the immigration/assimilation issue. If you want to trash such a man, give us facts, not cuss words.
You can’t talk sense into some of these gun nuts.
I’m a gun owner myself and I support firearms rights, and I would be delighted if John Howard agreed with me on guns. But if I agree with someone on ninety percent of issues, it seems ridiculous for me to claim our political views are incompatible over the other ten percent.
Single issues do not decide a persons place on the political spectrum. You have to look at their views as a whole, and some people just don’t seem to do that.
Exactly.
And by “gun nuts,” I mean single-issue nuts, not strong Second Amendment supporters (like myself!) or gun hobbyists.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.