Note that you are assuming that Barry will not be able or willing to do deals
with Labour or the Greens to get legislation through. Both would rather help
Barry with at least some of his agenda than being seen to be sacrificing the
environment. Given Barry's response to the SF this may be what he is signalling
subtly and leaning towards.. Barry will not be a 'boofhead' crash and burn
ideologue pollie - he wants to be in for several terms.
On 14/04/2011, at 9:51 AM, Carl Clifford wrote:
> It was on the S&F want list prior to the election. I don't think they have
> Carl Clifford
> On 14/04/2011, at 8:54 AM, Andrew Taylor wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 09:44:44PM +1000, Paul G Dodd wrote:
>> I think that the problem with modern democracy is not when the other side
>> wins - that's inevitable from time-to-time anyway. The problem is when
>> neither major party has a clear majority, and the balance of power is held
>> by minorities. Technically, with just one vote, the Shooters hold almost as
>> much power as either of the two major parties in NSW by virtue of their
>> casting vote.
> The NSW Upper House is 19 Coalition, 14 Labor, 5 Greens, 2 CDP and
> 2 Shooters/Fishers. Like recent NSW governments O'Farrell doesn't
> control the Upper House but courtesy the large coalition vote, he is
> close enough that he has various possibilities for getting legislation
> through the upper house. In newspaper stories he saying he won't deal
> with the Shooters&Fishers but pragmatically it does seem likely he
> will - just as the Labour did - because a deal looks quite tractable.
> I guess we'll see how much the Shooters&Fishers get - but O'Farrell is
> in a strong position so I doubt he'll give them much, in particular
> I can't see O'Farrell agreeing to a moratorium on new national parks.
> Its interesting a resumption of duck hunting apparently isn't (yet)
> on the Shooters/Fishers agenda.
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
> send the message:
> (in the body of the message, with no Subject line)