I meant that with a Labor government, preservation of jobs in safe
Liberal or National seats would not have as much a priority as it
would be if they were marginal Labor seats. The converse would apply
if the Coalition were in Government. It is a basic law of politics;
all why bother looking after an electorate who will not vote you into
power?
Cheers,
Carl Clifford
On 11/05/2009, at 10:10 AM, Rob Geraghty wrote:
--- On Mon, 5/11/09, Carl Clifford <> wrote:
The areas affected must contain
marginal Labor seats. If the seats wer safe Liberal or
National Party, the Superb Parrots would come first. But
then I am an old cynic.
Funny, I'd have said the opposite given the behaviour of the National
Party and their campaign to eradicate "woody weeds".
To be fair, I'd have said that the NSW Labour party has had a better
track record of protecting habitat than the Qld Nationals or federal
Liberals, but habitat west of the Great Divide has never been regarded
as important compared to habitat on or east of the Divide. It's all
about visibility to the majority of the population IMO.
Regards,
Rob
===============================
www.birding-aus.org
birding-aus.blogspot.com
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
unsubscribe
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
to:
===============================
===============================
www.birding-aus.org
birding-aus.blogspot.com
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
unsubscribe
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
to:
===============================
|
