the australian constitutional thingy

[Catherine Driscoll]

>which explains why traditional Labor Party electorates
>voted overwhelmingly 'no' -- as did National Party (rural) electorates
>(which in Victoria are strangely heamorraging to Labor Party-aligned
>independants)

oh and this.
i've said it before, but really the labor party just claimed the 'rural'
back on the strengths of the damage done there by the 'coalition' -- a
coalition which always subsumed rural conservatism into middleclass urban
conservatism without much respect for the specificity or the interests or
the former

catherine