Queensland election, who will win??

[Gingermick]

national all the way

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

[weisyboy]

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.

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.

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

[Waldo]

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]

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]

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.

[glock40sw]

I see Auntie pauline is running again...
Go Auntie...

[Blocklayer]

VOTE 1 ... Joe Bjelke Peterson



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]

I see Auntie pauline is running again...
Go Auntie...

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]

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]

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.

They are interconnected. By roads, and in Qld by footpaths. Here it's still legal to ride a pushbike on the footpath. 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.

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.

If that money were put into building buses in Australia it would provide as many jobs and more use to the community.

[Waldo]

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.

[Vernonv]

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]

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]

Well. I don't like any of the mongrels.
But I do support the shooters party.

[Vernonv]

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.