Queensland election, who will win?? [Archive]

damian

24th February 2009, 10:59 AM

Not as bad as the person he replaced. JBP has the tremendous distinction of undermining both our electoral system and freedom of assembly. Whatever else he did I can not forgive that.

Beatie spent 10 years stuffing this state, blowing out high salary admin and "communication" positions in government, increasing beaurocracy and state taxes. Because the opposition was unelectable he just kept on keeping on. Bligh has inherited that but due to her total lack of charisma and ability to lie convincingly even the really unsophisticated the people of queensland now realise we're in it up to our chins.

Of course the "borg" won't do a better job, but at least he's (unintentionally) funny.

I think the LNP will pick up some seats, but not enough to govern in their own right. There may be a resurgence of independants. The greens will continue to claw the odd seat especially in the nuvo-pseudo-hippie areas. I don't think the swing will be big enough to change this time, maybe next election especially if the LNP put up a leader who's a bit more convincing.

Waldo

24th February 2009, 11:16 AM

True what you wrote about Beatie Damian, I didn't like him, but I give him marks for making some hard decisions like implementing the dams around Esk, a bit down from Jimboomba and the other one (can't remember where exactly they are, but then Bligh has got cold feet and pulled the plug, for that she needs a boot up the and needs kicking out. Politicians who play politics over what is better for the state need :minigun: , espeically when it has to do with water, look at Brumby's inheritance down here with water :~ )- these were recommended back in '91 by the Water Resources Commission but dropped by the successive labour idiot Goss. When he asked for recommendations but didn't like the answers he was given.

Water desalination was the other one.

Didn't do great elsewhere as you wrote, but in other areas, he was okay.

I'd prefer LNP got in, but they've not been anywhere near heir strength of before Goss. And yes, for my 2¢ Joh did a heck of a lot of good for Queensland.

Spanner69

24th February 2009, 11:40 AM

I think it will be a Bligh government as the NLP has nothing to offer as a real alternative.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
I think the Bligh government needs a savage kick up the bottom and needs a huge scare..... particularly on the environmental and social issues. Kind of funny actually that the Greens are m<?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comhttp://www.woodworkforums.com/ /><st1:PersonName w:st=or</st1:PersonName>e socially responsible in terms of both the environment and jobs and social welfare which used to be the heart and soul of the ALP until the right wing factions of the ALP made the greed is good mantra Johnny was sprouting an ALP c<st1:PersonName w:st="on">or</st1:PersonName>e belief.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
F<st1:PersonName w:st="on">or</st1:PersonName> the rec<st1:PersonName w:st="on">or</st1:PersonName>d I am voting green as I firmly believe after reading their policies that they are the new ALP alternative and will bring about a social and environmental change that is required to bring us back to the <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:place w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">Australia</st1:country-region></st1:place> of social justice and to help with the climate chaos that is occurring. You should check out the policies of each of the political parties.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
In fact I am going to try and find some links so that people can make an inf<st1:PersonName w:st="on">or</st1:PersonName>med decision.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
I will try and include the three "main" parties but will also try f<st1:PersonName w:st="on">or</st1:PersonName> the min<st1:PersonName w:st="on">or</st1:PersonName> parties as well if I have <st1:PersonName w:st="on">tim</st1:PersonName>e.<o:p></o:p>

Waldo

24th February 2009, 11:45 AM

damian

24th February 2009, 11:47 AM

Really ? Like what ?

I've voted liberal very very rarely. Locally for our councillor who is very good, once in a NSW state election when they took the parties off the ballot paper and Unsworth was trying to take our guns off us. I've never voted Labour. I usually vote independant and study the candidates before the election. So I don't think I can be consider a raving fan of either side.

Having said that I have heard many times about "what Joe did for qld" but I'll be darned if I can figure out what ? He let his mates have their way with any resource in the state they wanted to pillage. Serious sustainable development was held back because no one outside qld wanted to do business up here. The government was a running joke and I wouldn't even visit my home state during the 80's because of the oppressive police actions and madness of it all.

I'm not telling you your wrong, I'm not slagging you off or anything. I am asking the question sincerely. What is it you percieve Joe did for queensland ?

The infrastructure problem is endemic across Australia at all levels of government. They have relinquished control of monopoly and critical infrastructure for a short term return then the private owners run it into the ground and hand it back when it's st*f'd. Also infrastructure spends as a % of GDP has been in decline since the early 70's. I'll be becoming water independant when I can and hopefully electricity and phone independant in due course. Then all I'll need is a high wall and some machine gun towers :)

Waldo

24th February 2009, 11:53 AM

Took on unions who were bringing the state to a stand still and stopping economic growth, brought Qld out of what other states called a backwater - if he hadn't of done what he did, Qld wouldn't be in the shape it was prior to the economics of today.

But, I don't want to increase stress levels of myself or anyone else with arguments, especially over politics. I'm not running from an argument, I'd just rather not make another thread in this forum another great debate.

Politics and religion were never meant to be argued. :shrug:

Spanner69

24th February 2009, 12:00 PM

Yeah, but if you go by Federal Greens their policies are up the... take for instance having negotiated bike pathways in the stimulis, :: :?

I've no idea, what the Greens in Queensland stand for, but I doubt it'd be much better than federally and just as ill thought. They might have ideas, but no idea on a bigger picture.

For me, all the Greens do is bring half baked ratbag ideas into the population.

:no:

With out trying to get personal ... as I really dont want it to get poersonal ... these sorts of comments are based in ignorance.

Bike paths?????? .... what better way to help deal with the obesity problems in australia, what a great way to help to reduce the cost of motor vehicles in Australia, what better way to help to reduce the congestion of morning peak hour in Australia, What better way of making our children safer when riding to school in Australia.

If you are going to make comments like these above then please make sure you have a valid reason for "poo-pooing" them and not just vitriol that is based on only part of the actual policy or based on as I said ignorance of the actual topic.

I say go for you life in downing any political party but do it with knowledge rather than vitriol.

Again as I said I am saying this not to offend any one but to make this a discussion that can be real and based on fact rather than based on what we hear in the tabloid newspapers.

Waldo

24th February 2009, 12:05 PM

What have bike paths got to do with improving the economy of Australia directly? :?

damian

24th February 2009, 12:06 PM

You cna email me from my usename if you want. I'm not interested in arguments either, but I am interested in what other people think about this stuff.

The political party thing is a seperate matter. Liberal and Lbour moved to the center because the desire of politicians to get elected supercedes any personal principals they may have. In teh 80's Hawke/Keeting et al realised the blue collar vote ahd nowhere to go so they could afford to shaft them in order to curry favour with the conservative voter. Howard applied the same in reverse to broaden the coalition vote.

The greens have a long way to go to become more than a side show. Yes they have filled the void left by the democrats in the senate but if there was another viable alternative they would again become irrelevant. They are pollitically naive and appeal only to the fringe of pseudo hippie inner city types. Everyone else regards them as too dangerous. Same with family first. I would not be sureprised if that chap doesn't get re-elected to the senate.

Golden rules of Australian politics:

Governments don't win elections they lose them. We never vote people in, we vote them out.

Australians more than anything else want stability. Whitlam found that out the hard way.

The only votes that matter are swinging votes in marginal seats. It does not matter what you do if your seat does not change hands. This does not apply to the upper houses of course. Australian federal elections are decided essentially by a few hundred thousand people, the rest of us don't count.

Waldo

24th February 2009, 12:08 PM

With what you wrote above I agree with.

damian

24th February 2009, 12:09 PM

With out trying to get personal ... as I really dont want it to get poersonal ... these sorts of comments are based in ignorance.

snip..

I say go for you life in downing any political party but do it with knowledge rather than vitriol.

Again as I said I am saying this not to offend any one but to make this a discussion that can be real and based on fact rather than based on what we hear in the tabloid newspapers.

Well I found his post a lot less offensive than yours. I'm not trying to start a punch up with you, but he was just expressing his opinion, while your criticising him for expressing it.

The reality is most Australians have no idea who their local reps are, how our government is structured or any details of the political parties policies. So are you suggesting they have no right to an opinion, or maybe even a vote ?

You sound like a typical greens voter :)

Vernonv

24th February 2009, 02:07 PM

What have bike paths got to do with improving the economy of Australia directly? :?

Infrastructure spending. Much like building roads, schools, hospitals, etc, just on a smaller scale.

.RC.

24th February 2009, 02:40 PM

One left leaning site I visit has surprised me with it's polling results..Labor only have got 25% of the vote so far (I cannot link to it as you cannot access it)....When this site had a federal election poll back in 2007 federal Labor had 90% support.

I am pretty annoyed at the electoral council this time around...They have removed the electorate I was in and stuck me into an electorate where the member is 300km away and I have to drive through two other electorates to see him....Sheer stupidity...

damian

24th February 2009, 04:49 PM

Infrastructure spending. Much like building roads, schools, hospitals, etc, just on a smaller scale.

The link between push bike riding and GDP is somewhat more tenuious than the link to education, transport and even health care. I think that might have been his point, but I could be wrong. Then again I profoundly disagree with the cash handouts. This downturn is going to last 2 - 3 years so immediate stimulus is less important than effective stimulous, but then again what has that to do with politics :)

Waldo

24th February 2009, 04:52 PM

The link between push bike riding and GDP is somewhat more tenuious than the link to education, transport and even health care. I think that might have been his point. Then again I profoundly disagree with the cash handouts. This downturn is going to last 2 - 3 years so immediate stimulus is less important than effective stimulous, but then again what has that to do with politics :)

:whs: :2tsup:

Vernonv

24th February 2009, 05:00 PM

The link between push bike riding and GDP is somewhat more tenuious than the link to education, transport and even health care. Well, that depends on the extent of the bike tracks doesn't it.:D

Seriously, whether you build a road or an equivalent value worth of bike paths, what's the difference? It will still inject roughly the same amount of money into the economy. I think that is the point that has been missed.

People tend to look at the party presenting the policy, rather than the policy on it's own merits ... and I'm guessing that this is the case here. I don't think I have ever voted for the Greens, but I reckon that bike paths are a good idea and would welcome them as part of an overall stimulus package.

Waldo

24th February 2009, 05:05 PM

Gra

24th February 2009, 05:51 PM

Guys,

remember, no mater who you vote for. You always end up with a politician

Waldo

24th February 2009, 06:00 PM

Vote Gra. :2tsup:

He doesn't look like a polie to me, :no:

Gra

24th February 2009, 06:49 PM

Vote Gra. :2tsup:

He doesn't look like a polie to me, :no:

Wookie maybe, but no pollie....

Maybe we need someone like this

wheelinround

24th February 2009, 06:53 PM

A Vote for the Mayor Of Munruben its a Vote for FREE WOOD
Long Weekends every weekend to work it
Gov rebates on all tools up to 99%

If you believe that you'll believe any politician

Vernonv

24th February 2009, 07:03 PM

It might inject money into the economy. My problem with it, is that it's short term and does nothing to aid and build upon the infrastructure needed by industry to increase the GDP.
That is where to me this stimulus has missed the point and shows Dudd has no idea at all.
Certainly industry needs to be catered for, but it only partially contributes to GDP. A stimulus packaged focused solely on industry, is destined to fail.
The package need to be balanced and aim for both short and long term benefits for industry, small business and households.

Maybe Dudd knows more than you think.:;

Spanner69

24th February 2009, 08:08 PM

What have bike paths got to do with improving the economy of Australia directly? :?

they create jobs!!!! you need people to make teh pathways and those people then go and spend money to live.

Look beyond the basic level and look at the deeper levels ..... just like we do with woodworking and the tools we use.

We could all "get by" with just one plaine but any woodworker worth theri salt use more and different tools.

Gingermick

24th February 2009, 08:31 PM

I vote for abolishing the states. Whichever party calls for that gets my vote.

AlexS

24th February 2009, 08:31 PM

It really doesn't matter who gets in, as long as they only just get in. If they know you have then by the family jewels, you're more likely to get to their hearts.

weisyboy

24th February 2009, 08:45 PM

after teh crap thats happend up at the mary river i surly hope labor goes. it is absolutly reduiculous that they flood the best dary farms in qld to build a dam that averages about 1m deep. they should sell teh land back to teh origional owners at what they paid for it and find a better spot. there are plenty around.

or do what old joe said "pipe the watter from the north" never has there been a better idea.

Having said that I have heard many times about "what Joe did for qld" but I'll be darned if I can figure out what ?

I'm not telling you your wrong, I'm not slagging you off or anything. I am asking the question sincerely. What is it you percieve Joe did for queensland ?

there hasnt been a dam built in qld scinse joe was in nor has there been any new roads or rail lines. al that labour has done since is drive the government into debt and build no infrastructure.

he built theis state up from nothing.

the gov neds to stop listening to the minorities and do sompthing for the state.

national all the way:2tsup:

Spanner69

24th February 2009, 08:47 PM

Guys,

remember, no mater who you vote for. You always end up with a politician

firstly .... apologies ... yes i actual;l;y committed a sin i was harangin you all about. Verry sorry.

And the above quote ... oh god that is so sad and so true.

By the way .... i am not a typical greens voter as I have been until recently a ALP stalwart having come up through the ranks of young labor and having worked both directly and indirectly fopr people such as Whitlam, Ros Kelly, barry Cunningham et al. So please do not tar me with the Typical greens voter unless you mean I believe in the ideals of the old such as social equity, environmental care etc etc.

:wink:

Gingermick

24th February 2009, 08:52 PM

national all the way:2tsup:

They dont exist anymore mate. We dont need more dams, just convince people in Brisbane that they are not living in the tropics, they are in a temperate environment that doesn't get much rain. Put up with brown grass or drink recycled water, I'd do it if I had to:D

weisyboy

24th February 2009, 09:20 PM

They dont exist anymore mate. We dont need more dams, just convince people in Brisbane that they are not living in the tropics, they are in a temperate environment that doesn't get much rain. Put up with brown grass or drink recycled water, I'd do it if I had to

i know that.:2tsup:

we only ever had a liberal candidate here any how.

no we dont need more dams they just need to raise the walls by a bit. it would double the watter they hold.

recyceld watter is the biggest mistake the labour government made and if the lib nats are smart they will point that out. send it to industry and keep the good stuff for drinking.

just like the fluride. luckily we havent actualy been getting that. the machine drojke down teh first day and hasent been fixed yet:U.

its times like this i am glad that im on tank watter.

Waldo

24th February 2009, 10:42 PM

nor has there been any new roads or rail lines.

You mustn't drive very far (roads, there's too many to name) or go on too many rail lines (Airport to Eagle Junction, Beenleigh - Robina).

:?

powderpost

24th February 2009, 11:05 PM

If only we could believe them. Bet Health, Education, Roads and Law and Order get a good airing...........again and again and again and again.....
Jim

bille

25th February 2009, 03:13 AM

Looks like us Queenslanders are up for an election in under a months time...

Who do you think will win?

Does the current incumbent government deserve to get back?

Will the LNP get a 7.8% swing and win the 22 seats required? A swing of that magnitude has happened before in the 1989 election.

What is your prediction...

Mine is a Labor victory by 2 or 3 seats..

For the record, I shall not be voting for the incumbent.

The only winners will be all polititians who will all have thier noses in the public trough.

The losers as always, will be the poor bloody Tax payers who have to keep filling up the trough...same story everywhere...every election:no:.

glock40sw

25th February 2009, 07:50 AM

I see Auntie pauline is running again...:2tsup:
Go Auntie...:D

Blocklayer

25th February 2009, 09:03 AM

VOTE 1 ... Joe Bjelke Peterson

http://tbn2.google.com/images?q=tbn:MfYCrA_eaMRVQM:http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2005/04/22/joh_bjelke_peterson_wideweb__430x426.jpg

He may be dead, but he couldn't possibly do any worse than what we have now

Click to vote now -> http://tinyurl.com/cccz8u

damian

25th February 2009, 09:48 AM

I see Auntie pauline is running again...:2tsup:
Go Auntie...:D

The beauty of Pauline Hanson is she shook up the dualopoly. It was depressing to see how quickly our so called political rivals closed ranks to shout her down, and how they attacked her with slurrs and name calling instead of rational argument. Really showed how awful they are...

Now, many replies here so I've strung them together. Please forgive the format:

Vernov:
Well, that depends on the extent of the bike tracks doesn't it.
Seriously, whether you build a road or an equivalent value worth of bike paths, what's the difference? It will still inject roughly the same amount of money into the economy. I think that is the point that has been missed.

Me:

The problem I (and I suspect Waldo) have with this is the usage and productivity of the asset after construction. Man hours per million spend is probably fairly consistent but if the money was spent on roads or public transport it would be well utilised. Bike paths have historically not been well utilised. The greens amendment was about politics not economics. It was about their personal political agenda not the economy.

Gingermic:
I vote for abolishing the states. Whichever party calls for that gets my vote.

Me:

I have long thought that many aspects of the decline in our society can be attributed to the move from a community base to an anonomous base. Crime, bad manners and beaurocracy have no consequences these days because people no longer know each other. It is my opinion that powerful local governments, probably based on federal seats and having no more than about 5000 voters per councillor, would reestablish a community base in Australia and one shire at a time we could put things to right. The local governments would have to take over most government activity and authority with the federal government limited to matters of national importance like border control, foreign affairs, national infrastructure. The beurocracy could be monolithic and matrix because the key powers politicians have over it are money and legislation. If a local government could withdraw or taylor finance to a department or project without having to deal with the consequences of payouts and such then they would very much disempower the bureaucracy. With 5000 voters per councillor you would know who yours was, and where they lived. If that doesn't keep tehm honest I don't know what would. You could also coordinate the elections so we went once every 3 years and did it all at once.

AlexS:
It really doesn't matter who gets in, as long as they only just get in. If they know you have then by the family jewels, you're more likely to get to their hearts.

Me:

Couldn't agree more. I've been telling people for 20 years the absolute best outcome for Australians is a hung parliment. Nearly everything they do shafts us, if they have to justify every move to indenpendants or whatever they shaft us more slowly.

You can probably guess I don't like the government. :)

Vernonv

25th February 2009, 10:08 AM

Bike paths have historically not been well utilised. The greens amendment was about politics not economics. It was about their personal political agenda not the economy.

Maybe the fact that they are not well utilised is because they don't interconnect (ie there is not enough of them). Could you image how well roads would be utilised, if they didn't interconnect, or public transport didn't interconnect?

How is the greens amendment about politics? Is it not about building infrastructure and therefore injecting money into the economy?

"personal political agenda" - is that another way of saying that they are representing the interests of the people that voted them in?

damian

25th February 2009, 10:30 AM

Waldo

25th February 2009, 10:56 AM

The problem I (and I suspect Waldo) have with this is the usage and productivity of the asset after construction. Man hours per million spend is probably fairly consistent but if the money was spent on roads or public transport it would be well utilised. Bike paths have historically not been well utilised. The greens amendment was about politics not economics. It was about their personal political agenda not the economy.

:2tsup:

Vernonv

25th February 2009, 11:02 AM

Yes it is, and to an extent that is their job. It is about politics because the choice of how to spend the money isn't about how best to spend it, it's about how they want it spent. The money is going to be spent anyway, but if the decision were purely economic it would be spent for the best return on investment. Bikeways don't yield the best return on investment and that is why it's political. You have to remember that what they are asking for is a very small percentage of the total package. Maybe only a small percentage of the population will utilise the paths, but then again the greens only want a small percentage of the package spent on it.

Just because some people do not agree with the policy doesn't necessarily make it politically motivated.

They are interconnected. By roads, and in Qld by footpaths. Here it's still legal to ride a pushbike on the footpath. Bike paths are not interconnected by bike paths and Queensland isn't the whole of Australia.

Even if they were interconnected usage wouldn't increase substantially without a signifigant cultural and lifestyle change. You would have as much luck asking Australians to give up grid electricity or mains water.Change has to start somewhere. Also I don't have mains water and it was pretty easy to give up.

Do you really think people who live 30 kilometers from work would cycle every day carrying their change of clothes, lunches etc etc ? up hill and down ? Do you really think housewives would give up their 100 series landcruisers and take the kids to school on pushbikes ? go shopping on them and lug home a trailer full of groceries melting in the sun ? Do you suppose the tradies would shun their hiluxes ? The fact is most Australians have to cover too many miles every week to get life done. Yes it's a function of how our society has evolved, but changing it is a massive undertaking. I'm not saying it's right or ideal, but it is how it is. I don't know - but there are lot's of situations where bike transport (or simply for recreation) it quite valid and possible. It's just as easy to give examples for either case. However, lack of infrastructure doesn't make bike transport an easy option.

If that money were put into building buses in Australia it would provide as many jobs and more use to the community. I think you'll find that the amount of money talked about would not provide too many buses and keep them running for long.

Waldo

25th February 2009, 11:15 AM

You have to remember that what they are asking for is a very small percentage of the total package. Maybe only a small percentage of the population will utilise the paths, but then again the greens only want a small percentage of the package spent on it.

Just because some people do not agree with the policy doesn't necessarily make it politically motivated.

Whatever the amount, I can't believe that it's going to do any good except make those who like to peddle their bikes to work, think that the greens have done something for them.

Nor can I believe and accept that bike paths are in the economic interests of Australia as a whole. It goes back to my point earlier somewhere - the Greens are little ideas based on their own agenda, they have no idea of the big picture.

The money in the stimulus, has to have a perpetual motion of continuing to generate something - bike paths don't. Xenaphon (sp? ) has more of an idea just as a singular Independent than the Greens put together, at least he negotiated more money on the Murray for his vote (the Greens had a grand plan for their vote), which will help pasturalists etc. up and down the river, which helps a massive % of our economy. Weigh that against bikes paths.

glock40sw

25th February 2009, 11:31 AM

Well. I don't like any of the mongrels.:no:
But I do support the shooters party.:2tsup:

Vernonv

25th February 2009, 11:33 AM

Whatever the amount, I can't believe that it's going to do any good except make those who like to peddle their bikes to work, think that the greens have done something for them. OK, the amount to be spent on bike paths is $40m. That is 0.095% of the $42b package. It will not only benefit commuters, it will also be used by children (providing a much safer place to ride, than the roads) and for recreation in general (something that should be promoted in this age of obesity).

Nor can I believe and accept that bike paths are in the economic interests of Australia as a whole. It's simple, you need to pay people to build the paths.

The money in the stimulus, has to have a perpetual motion of continuing to generate something - bike paths don't. The money paid goes back into the economy and gets "recycled". Just the same as any infrastructure project. I'm not sure I see the difference.

Xenaphon (sp? ) has more of an idea just as a singular Independent than the Greens put together, at least he negotiated more money on the Murray for his vote (the Greens had a grand plan for their vote), which will help pasturalists etc. up and down the river, which helps a massive % of our economy. Weigh that against bikes paths.Yes, give the guy $40m and see what he achieves with it. Lets compare apples with apples.

damian

25th February 2009, 12:51 PM

OK, the amount to be spent on bike paths is $40m. That is 0.095% of the $42b package.

It's simple, you need to pay people to build the paths.

The money paid goes back into the economy and gets "recycled". Just the same as any infrastructure project. I'm not sure I see the difference.

I've typed this twice now. One more try. It is the economic impact after the building project is completed that is different. You could pay people to build $40 million worth of sand castles but if the asset is of little or no value to the community after the project is finished then the money can be better spent elsewhere.

Yes, give the guy $40m and see what he achieves with it. Lets compare apples with apples.

40 mill would build quite a few buses, for example, and their ongoing costs should be covered by fares.

Waldo

25th February 2009, 12:56 PM

:aro-u:

I'm going to do it again. Damian, I totally agree with you.

Vernonv

25th February 2009, 01:39 PM

I've typed this twice now. One more try. It is the economic impact after the building project is completed that is different. You could pay people to build $40 million worth of sand castles but if the asset is of little or no value to the community after the project is finished then the money can be better spent elsewhere. It looks like I also need to keep repeating myself - a road is no different to a bike path. Now a bike path may not be of use to you, but there are plenty of people who it is of use to. On top of that we are talking about a minuscule percentage of the total package - if it was a significant percentage, then I might agree with you ... but it isn't.

40 mill would build quite a few buses, for example, and their ongoing costs should be covered by fares. Your joking right - when has public transport ever paid for itself? When you consider the initial outlay, plus drivers wages, plus fuel, plus maintenance ... $40m won't get you far ... you'd be better off buying a bike:D.

jmk89

25th February 2009, 03:35 PM

Luckily I don't have to make a decision in Queensland.

But I would remind Queenslanders of one of the few sensible things that a State Premier has said - Nick Greiner pointed out that in modern Australia, the States are not about economies (sorry Anna, even the QIC guy had to say that you are irrelevant to economic matters) that is a Federal issue. The States are about efficient service delivery in the areas of their responsibility - those are water, electricity, roads, rail, ports, education, hospitals, police courts, prisons, etc.

The decision about which party to elect is not ideological (or should not be) it is about who do you think can delvier those services with the greatest "bang per buck". That really means - honesty and preparedness to make decisions without bloating the intermediaries of the bureacracy between the source of the funding and the point of delivery of the service. To put it another way, you want good management without corruption or porkbarrelling.

Take policing and justice - do not fall for the crap about fixed term sentences - these only put the muppets that the Police manage to catch behind bars for longer and does not prevent crime.

.RC.

28th February 2009, 10:04 PM

I am wondering if labor are going to bother releasing any polices this election campaign...All they currently have done is attack the opposition...Perhaps after 12 years in office they feel their fantastic record of managing the state speaks for itself and they do not need to do anything...

Also notice they are nothing but doom and gloom on the future of the state with regards to the economic crisis...

.RC.

21st March 2009, 11:03 AM

Don't forget to vote today and remember that Queensland has optional preferential voting....You do not have to preference other candidates..Putting just a single 1 in a box will do...

mjmjm

21st March 2009, 08:41 PM

Pretty sure politicians are going to win. As usual.
Michael

Gra

21st March 2009, 09:10 PM

Guys,

remember, no mater who you vote for. You always end up with a politician

Pretty sure politicians are going to win. As usual.
Michael

mjmjm Your about a month late on that comment:D:D

weisyboy

21st March 2009, 09:13 PM

somehow labour managed to get in again.:roll:

mjmjm

21st March 2009, 09:30 PM

Sorry, hadn't seen any previous posts.
True nevertheless.
Looks like Labor's back. Sigh.
I'm working class, but this mob's got nothing to do with the working class. Pity there wasn't an alternative.

Michael

Blocklayer

21st March 2009, 09:39 PM

Looks like our (once) hospital stays a 'Health Centre' , no police to ring in an emergencey (it's a waste of time here) , dumb kids (and teachers), criminals free and rewarded

BUT we get a walking track to the Cape, Crocs in Space and poison (flouride) in our once world class water.

Bring back the 'Brisbane Line'

:

weisyboy

21st March 2009, 09:43 PM

and all the poor buggers in town get to drink s#!t

mjmjm

21st March 2009, 09:45 PM

Message to the new Queensland government:

We didn't want you back but we're stuck with you.
But don't imagine for a minute that you have a mandate to do anything except fix the things you've broken since you've been in office.

Michael

Blocklayer

21st March 2009, 09:49 PM

I do not understand, when we have plenty of water (here in what used to be the Douglas Shire), we have water restrictions because they have water restrictions in Cairns

:

Please Explain

:

mjmjm

21st March 2009, 09:55 PM

The explanation is called bureaucrats.
They are smarter than politicians.
Politicians, mostly, don't know which way is up.
Bureaucrats run governments.
Bureaucrats also don't know which way is up, but they know how to get what they want.

Michael

Blocklayer

21st March 2009, 10:16 PM

Oh well, I suppose we'll just have to get used to the way it is.

We need to adapt to the way things are here now in (Far North) QLD

Great shame for 'Old Australia'

RIP

:

hewn

21st March 2009, 10:30 PM

After giving us the fluoride we needed to have I've got a nasty feeling the next thing they'll foist on us is daylight saving time. Vegetation laws will be tightened to a death grip around the throats of farmers and sawmillers. Registration will almost certainly go up for 6 & 8 cylinder cars. For those of us living outside Brisbane I think it's time to get the Vaseline ready.:oo:

mjmjm

21st March 2009, 10:45 PM

I know I'm going to wake up tomorrow to a smiling politicianess telling me how grateful she is to the people of Queensland for electing her incompetenceness for another term.
And how humble she is at the people's confidence in her administration. Etc etc.
And how responsive she will be to the people's concerns about her previous administration. Etc etc.

And then they'll get on with it. The incompetence, the holidays abroad, the incompetence, the incompetence, and the incompetence. And the holidays abroad.
Aint it wonderful to be a politician?

Michael

.RC.

21st March 2009, 11:32 PM

A result no one predicted..

However you get the government you deserve..

Gingermick

22nd March 2009, 09:13 AM

Well the whole god damned fiasco was an appalling waster of time and money. Townsville is 20 odd hours drive from Brisbane.
Now that we've had regional council amalgamations, let's amalgamate the State gov into the regional councils as well.

.RC.

22nd March 2009, 11:39 AM

It will be interesting who the next leader of the LNP will be...They need someone who is like Rudd....The federal Labor party was considered a joke until Rudd came to power...One person changed their entire outlook and they stormed to victory, even though the workings of the party had not changed..

The next three years will be very hard for Queensland, there is no way in hell bligh will create 100 000 new jobs..unemployment is expected to reach near 10%..The LNP probably will think the result was a blessing in disguise, I don't think any political party would want to be in power at the moment, when the recession really does start to hit that is when opinion polls will start to change...

Cruzi

22nd March 2009, 06:44 PM

Queenslanders are not stupid, hard times are indeed coming.

When voters know tough times are coming they always vote in the Labour Party, as they are percieved as giving the best help in tough times, when times are good the conservatives will be voted back in.

Anyone who thought that anything different would happen has not looked at Australian political history.

.RC.

22nd March 2009, 07:11 PM

Queenslanders are not stupid,

I disagree with that..stupid may not be the correct word..maybe unknowingly selfish or ignorant is a better phrase...

Australians have a history of voting for idiots....Howard should never have lasted as long as he did...He started off well and ended up the same as queensland labor..

Cruzi

22nd March 2009, 08:37 PM

This may be a little OT, but I think these times highlight the problems with partisan politics.

The Opposition should stop being just that and start working with the ruling parties in order to help lessen any impact the current crisis has.

This also means that the ruling parties should also be willing to work with the opposition parties.

One-eyed political bias has a special home in Queensland, but its not about getting power (well, it shouldn't be) but about doing whats best for the Country/State.

AlexS

22nd March 2009, 08:42 PM

In the lead-up to the election, I didn't hear from one Queenslander who was going to vote for Labor (and I communicate with quite a few), yet they got in. How come?

Cruzi

22nd March 2009, 08:46 PM

Because the Gerrymander that allowed the National Party to rule the state with 30% of the vote has long been abolished and the majority of Queenslanders (albeit a small majority) voted Labour in.

Waldo

22nd March 2009, 08:53 PM

When voters know tough times are coming they always vote in the Labour Party, as they are percieved as giving the best help in tough times, when times are good the conservatives will be voted back in.

:no: :aro-u: that's a matter of opinion.

Which, to take your idea, is why Dudd is doing such a good job now? Instead of trying to talk things up, he wheels out the cart and calls out, "Lay out your dead, lay out your dead!"

:~

I agree and concur with AlexS' post.

Waldo

22nd March 2009, 08:55 PM

Because the Gerrymander that allowed the National Party to rule the state with 30% of the vote has long been abolished and the majority of Queenslanders (albeit a small majority) voted Labour in.

Each political party has always moved the Electrol boundaries, Ahern did it, Goss did it, Beatie did it - they all do it. (if it's my fotre, why did I mention Ahern? )

.RC.

22nd March 2009, 09:49 PM

Because the Gerrymander that allowed the National Party to rule the state with 30% of the vote has long been abolished and the majority of Queenslanders (albeit a small majority) voted Labour in.

Actually it is interesting..

At the moment Labor have got 42.7% of the vote which gives them maybe 50-53 seats
LNP 41.1% which gives them 32 to 35 seats
Greens got 8.2% but no seats
Independant got 8% with four seats..

Not a lot of difference between labour and the lnp but a big difference between seat counts.. Sort of like a jerrymander in itself..

I am guessing that Labor will end up holding no seats outside a major regional or city area..So Labor effectively won by keeping the urban voters happy and the LNP failed by not looking like a credible alternative to urban voters...

Come next election I cannot see the LNP losing any support in the seats they have now..Leopards do not change their spots and Labor will be feeling pretty smug at the moment so not a lot will change in the next two and half years.. If the LNP get a credible leader at the next election they will probably get in, however the problem will be this..In two and a half years time the recession/depression we will have will probably be just about over but the state will be in a lot of debt, and I mean a lot and cuts will have to be made, no doubt drastic cuts like Jeff Kennett did to victoria. The life of a political party who will be forced to make the cuts will be short... Australians do not seem to like to be told they cannot have something or have been living beyound their means...Living beyound our means is the reason why the recession is about to start..

The next few years will be interesting but painful...

weisyboy

22nd March 2009, 10:02 PM

lets face it despite the recession after 15 years of labour government there will be a huge debt to pay back. they will just get it all payed back and be running in surplus and labour will get back in and spend it all.

damian

23rd March 2009, 01:35 PM

Couple of things.

The gerrymander wasn't like a boundary redistribution. It weighted rural votes more heavily than urban votes.

Preferential voting even optional preferential is a debatable system. Consider indooroopilly where the LNP is streets ahead on primaries but it'll be a tustle between the greens and labour who will win the seat.

They have already raised registration, that was in the mini budget, although there are rumous of another hit. Mine's just arrived and it's up $70.

I, like everyone else, am shocked at the return, but it did occur to me last week that as the reality bit at the voting booth hands would shake and take the "safe" option. Springborg had made big inroads into his image but he's still basically unelectable. The conseravtives didn't shoot themselves down this time but they didn't really get any traction either.

While Bligh is utterly repulsive, corrupt and as mentioned incompetant, most people think better the disaster your used to in difficult times than someone who might possibly if they try hard enough make an even bigger mess of it.

They lost the election mostly in Brisbane. Perhaps if they had run drive time ads on radio pointing out the labour gov has had 11 years to fix our roads and done basically nothing it might have reminded eveyone how hopeless labour is.

Oh well. If I could find some where else nice to move to I'd be out of here in a jiffy. What's the central coast of WA like ?

Sturdee

23rd March 2009, 03:52 PM

Oh well. If I could find some where else nice to move to I'd be out of here in a jiffy. What's the central coast of WA like ?

And there I thought that Queensland was beautiful one day and perfect the next. Seems I was wrong and that it's as corrupt and hopeless as all the other states.

Peter.

damian

23rd March 2009, 04:47 PM

Well it's not as bad as Victoria :D

mic-d

23rd March 2009, 05:12 PM

What a mob of whingeing whining Monday armchair experts.

Righto you experts, you've obviously studied politics and know how to fix the problems, riddle me one simple thing. What the hell is the Labour party?

Cheers
Michael

echnidna

23rd March 2009, 05:30 PM

:2tsup::2tsup:

jerryc

23rd March 2009, 05:58 PM

What a mob of whingeing whining Monday armchair experts.

Cheers
Michael

As I remember things Qld was the state that allowed a certain Joh to run the most corrupt regime in Australia.Remember "Don't you worry about that." Rural voters are slow to change.
What the election was about, as all elections are, is the fact that the people elect those who they believe are best suited to do the job. So stop moaning and accept the fact that this time your choice was not the majority choice. Life doesn't always give us what we want.

Jerry

damian

24th March 2009, 10:06 AM

Oow that's a big call. Probably more correct to say most obviously corrupt in our history. No one seemed to notice when Hawke got in in 83 the procession of labour politicians to switzerland sorting out their accounts.

Given the rampant nepotism and the lengths this administration has gone to to "accomodate" developers I'd guess they rival any previous government in this country.

As for the outcome of the election, I am not a conservative voter, nor do I have any illusions we would be better off under the LNP or whatever they call themselves this week. I vote independant usually and had hoped for a hung parliment. Of course I accept the result, what choice do I have ?

Michael:

Attacking my spelling is very clever. I'm impressed.

If you read my posts carefully you'll see I'm just offering another perspective. My attacks on the labor (labour) party are based on facts not opinions, nor partisan politics. It is a fact that in the last 11 years our road system in SEQ has been left to rot with virtually no upgrades. It is a fact that administralion has exploded, that only about 300 beds have been added to the queensland hospital system, that nepotism is rife.

I was born here, I quite like the place. I resented what Joh did to my state, I resent what this government has done.

Are you suggesting I have no right to be unhappy that my home is being ruined ? That we shouldn't criticise the government ?

If you don't like what I have to write you might be happier not reading it.

Blocklayer

24th March 2009, 10:52 AM

As I remember things Qld was the state that allowed a certain Joh to run the most corrupt regime in Australia.Remember "Don't you worry about that."

Those were the days!
We had hospitals, police, law and order, good education.
It was safe to walk the streets.
Criminals were in prison (imagine if those bikies were in Brisbane in the 70's - Don't you worry about that!)

And the corruption was out in the open for all to see.

At the end of the day, I'd much, much prefer Johs 'system' to the disaster we have today.

:

Waldo

24th March 2009, 10:53 AM

Those were the days!
We had hospitals, police, law and order, good education.
It was safe to walk the streets.
Criminals were in prison (imagine if those bikies were in Brisbane in the 70's - Don't you worry about that!)

And the corruption was out in the open for all to see.

At the end of the day, I'd much, much prefer Johs 'system' to the disaster we have today.

:

:whs:

damian

24th March 2009, 11:11 AM

He did pervert the electoral system, strip away free speach and the right to public assembly and turn off everyone from out of state investing in the place. I suppose the taxes were low, but do we really need a corrupt police state to have low taxes ? and were they worth the wider cost ?

I just think we could do better, but I suppose as long as the electorate don't care or know any better, and as long as being a politician is such an onerous job we won't attract a better class to the work.

I believe that many of the problems society faces today are rooted in the move form a community based society to an anonomous one. When we were a collection of towns and suburbs behaving poorly had real consequences, and many problems were taken care of at a local level. Now it's all abdicated to a bureucracy and we only know what's going on in our own street through the filter of the media. 2c.

Vernonv

24th March 2009, 11:27 AM

I believe that many of the problems society faces today are rooted in the move form a community based society to an anonomous one. When we were a collection of towns and suburbs behaving poorly had real consequences, and many problems were taken care of at a local level. Now it's all abdicated to a bureucracy and we only know what's going on in our own street through the filter of the media. 2c.Couldn't agree more.:2tsup:
People living in relative isolation believe they can do what they want (normally for their own benefit) without considering the wider implications. There also seems to be this belief that if you screw up or do something stupid or need something, that the responsibility belongs to "someone else". People need to be held responsible for their own actions and outcomes.

Gingermick

24th March 2009, 04:32 PM

but that's not a vote winner, no major political party is going to consign themselves to oblivion for values.

mic-d

24th March 2009, 08:58 PM

Michael:

Attacking my spelling is very clever. I'm impressed.

If you read my posts carefully you'll see I'm just offering another perspective. My attacks on the labor (labour) party are based on facts not opinions, nor partisan politics. It is a fact that in the last 11 years our road system in SEQ has been left to rot with virtually no upgrades. It is a fact that administralion has exploded, that only about 300 beds have been added to the queensland hospital system, that nepotism is rife.

I was born here, I quite like the place. I resented what Joh did to my state, I resent what this government has done.

Are you suggesting I have no right to be unhappy that my home is being ruined ? That we shouldn't criticise the government ?

If you don't like what I have to write you might be happier not reading it.

Hi Damien
I don't know why you've responded to me in this way:?. You've clearly overmeasured the importance of your posts to me. There were several respondents in this thread I was having a go at certainly not exclusively you. I appreciate from your tag that you are never wrong, so I accept if you wish to keep your own sense of reality.

Cheers
Michael

damian

25th March 2009, 12:43 PM

Your post finished with a quip about the spelling of labor as labour. Whether it was directed specifically at me or others who had spelled it that way it was still an attack on the spelling of a word.

The first half of your post attacked people for venting their frustration with the outcome, and/or the governments policies. Your very welcome to disagree with teh sentiments, and to put an alternative view, but just calling people a bunch of idiots for expressing an opinion is a personal attack and adds nothing to this discussion.

Whether you were attacking me or others doesn't matter. You shouldn't be attacking people. By all means disagree and argue the point, but there is a difference.

jerryc

25th March 2009, 03:48 PM

Damien

Perhaps you should lighten up just a trifle. The labour/ labor comment was meant in a light hearted manner and at no time did I see Mic-d use the term "idiots".
I know Michael can well defend himself but let's keep a sense of proportion. The election is over, the majority has decided. What point is there in getting hot under the collar now?

Incidently you took up my use of the phrase "conservative voter" not quite in the mannner I intended. By conservative I was not referring to political parties but to the nature of the voter. That is they are welded to a party, that they are slow to or never change. I should have made myself clearer..

Jerry

damian

25th March 2009, 04:40 PM

First I'm not hot under the collar. I don't get angry over stuff people I don't know type on a mostly anonomous internet forum. There are just far more important things in life than that.

mic-d posted a 2 line entry to this thread. As far as I can see it's his first foray into the discussion. The first line reads (to save you scrolling up the page) :

What a mob of whingeing whining Monday armchair experts.

Maybe that's meant as a joke, but it reads like an attack. I often am misunderstood in type because the comment lacks body language, intonation etc, but I do try when I remember to add emoticons etc to indicate the context. This person lacks those in his origional post and as far as I can see in his (lets assume for brevity it's a "him") followup. My comments were intended to make him realise his post could be taken as a personal attack and IMO that is inappropriate. I would like to think he sees this as an opportunity to explain the context and intent of the post rather than a personal attack. Perhaps I failed.

The reference to conservative voters was not specifically drawn from your comments. It's a generic term used to describe people who vote for "conservative" politicians, as opposed to "socialist" politicans.

With regards your comments, my understanding at least as of some years ago is that 93% of people in Australia vote the same way at every election. I have been one of those people, consistently voting for independants. In truth my vote does not count. In fact elections are won and lost on a few hundred thousand votes, swing voters in marginal seats. The rest of us simply don't matter. Even in the senate relatively few votes determine the outcome. I live in a safe "consertative" seat. My councillor, state and federal members are all liberal (or LNP if you like). They win on primaries. My vote does not matter.

Hopefully that clears it up.