Queensland election

Watching TV last night, I was struck by the deluge of publicly funded government propaganda ads. Today, the reason was revealed as LNP Premier Campbell Newman called an election for 31 January, running several months short of a full term. Most insider comment seems to view this is a clever move, catching the Opposition off-guard and so on. My view would be that they are more likely to lose votes from people who expect a holiday from politics at this time of year.

139 thoughts on “Queensland election

  1. @BilB

    That is the reactive non-strategic thinking that gave us…….Tony Abbott……,

    I disagree.

    In my opinion a lot of factors made the ALP lose the 2013 election: these include capitulating to a policy of inhumane cruelty toward refugees, “faceless-men” manouverings over the previous 3 years, embrace of neo-liberalism, shafting Wilkie on the pokies promise, backsliding on Tasmanian forests deal, folding to big-mining, backsliding on climate change and slavish adherence to US wars.

    There were others, but they are some of the main ones.

    As the election approached ALP supporters largely boiled their pro-ALP case down to a slogan, repeated loudly and constantly ad nauseam – “Abbott Would Be Worse!”

    As it turns out, that didn’t work.

    In Queensland under the last ALP government they sold assets against the very obvious wishes of the electorate. Now ALP supporters are reverting to type and yelling at everyone “LNP will sell assets, Newman would be worse!”

    I don’t think that will work either. The ALP leader is lamely saying “We won’t sell [any more] assets.” But they haven’t really apologized for doing it last time they were in charge, understandably the electorate doesn’t seem too impressed.

    As I said before, the ALP seems to think they deserve to be elected by default.

  2. The question has to be to your objections,

    refugees, neoliberalism, faceless men, Pokies, Tasmanian forests folding on big mining, backsliding on climate change,

    …has the situation in all of these fields improved under LNP?

    Are refugees being treated more humanely
    Are all of the faceless men now visible
    Has neo-liberalism departed our shores
    Have the LNP abolished pokies
    Are Tasmanian forests now safe
    Has LNP climate action leapt ahead of ALP climate action

    Is Abbott worse for the country than Gillard would have been?

    In Qld I suspect that there are none of the people who sold the power bits there left to make an apology, but I am confused as to why you would keep the other guy who is determined to sell absolutely everything there, including water from what I see of JQ’s list.

  3. Well now I feel nervous and uncomfortable, I’m not used to being “right”.

    Perhaps we should examine this more closely.

    You are right in that the ALP needs to change,…a lot.

    ALP needs to review “free trade” in light of its impacts on our economy. Not form a “is it right or is it not” perspective, but from a which parts are working for us and which parts are working against, to what degree, and what changes can be made to stabilise our employment profile with a view to reducing resources depletion.

    As Labour are hell bent on perpetually talking health and education, can we change to conversation to adapting to the future world rather than reorganising both fields,…yet again.

    The best way to reduce health costs is with technology that enables people to help themselves. We need to rapidly engage in research and product development for self monitoring of health, self diagnosis, and remote diagnosis where possible. This involves software and hardware that enables people to be better informed of their condition whilst collecting information more accurately to assist doctors at the point of consultation whether that be face to face or via technological connection.

    If our economy becomes more resilient through a better connection between govt and industry, the fiscal position will be improved to the extent that the cost of education is not a burden. This should be the aim, not flick reactions to cut costs (LNP), or to rearrange (ALP).

    The best way to reinvigorate the ALP is to get a different mix of candidates. Stop seeking more legal, union, and educational people, start adding science, mathematics, and engineering people. The difference in the outcomes will be the discomfort of change.

  4. @ZM

    So, would you agree that in relation to a legislative proposal introduced by the King, the House of Commons and the House of Lords were (structurally) in the same position? And would you likewise agree that in relation to a legislative proposal introduced to a modern parliament by the executive government, the lower house and the upper house are (structurally) in the same position?

  5. @Ikonoclast

    Purely as a technical comment on how the electoral system works: if your objectives are as stated, then Yes, that is the most effective way of marking your ballot paper to pursue those objectives.

  6. J-D,

    Well, no to tell you the truth.

    The Crown and Parliament had some changes over time. If we forget the roots in Anglo Saxon days for the moment – you see there was an Upper House House of Lords by itself before there was a Liwer House House of Commons. And the head of the Upper House was the Lord High Chancellor who was the highest office except for the King. And as I said the King could devise legislation without seeking the two houses approval but just getting the great seal from the Lord High Chancellor of the Upper House – although then the King had to think the parliamentarians and community wouldn’t rebel against his law.

    And the House of Lords has been the House of Review for ages – except in the UK the House of Commons is even more cunning than ours and says all money bills are not dependent on review by the House of Lords. This is unconstitutional in my view, like Queensland not having its Upper House , but I do not live in Queenskand or the UK.

    And today I think our Commonwealth’s formal process is that the bill originates in the Lower House for debate and if passed goes to the Upper House for review.

    Bills are often thought of by Council – but I don’t think this is the formal process per se is it?
    I think it is more just that the people in the Council have the most power and influence so their bills are the important bills that are likely to get support. But other members can also propose their bills – but they mayn’t have much luck getting them through the Lower House since they gave less power and influence than the Council.

  7. @J-D

    Why the italicised “if”? Given what I write, it is hardly to be doubted that I abhor the LNP, I find the ALP only marginally “better” if at all and even the Greens are not left wing enough for me.

  8. @ZM

    You are mistaken about the formal process. Bills can be originated in either house. The function of originating bills is not restricted to the lower house. It is formally possible for bills to be originated in the upper house and to pass to the lower house only after adoption by the upper house. The formal responsibilities of the houses in this respect are largely symmetrical. What’s more, in practice many bills are originated in the upper house and proceed to the lower house only after the upper house has passed them.

    Did you not know this?

  9. @Ikonoclast

    I italicised the word ‘if’ in an attempt (possibly misconceived — if it was, I regret it) to emphasise that I was expressing no view of my own about objectives.

  10. It seems that the present situation is that the houses are not equal or the same – but that you are correct to the degree that there are some limited types of bills that can originate in the Upper House before proceeding to the Lower House – but not money bills.

    Bills can originate in the executive council, any member, a department, or from the community (I think community bills might be the blues bills I read about another time ).

    Anyway it’s more complicated than either I or you allowed in our starting views but it has encouraged me to read a bit more and contributed to my education about the Criwn and parliamentary history. I still hold that Queensland is entitled to have its Upper House restored though since it is the primary house , and the lower the secondary.

  11. @ZM

    Of course there are more points of detail than I covered in my first comments — or than I have covered in my comments since, for that matter. But that doesn’t prove that my earlier comments were inaccurate, or that I didn’t allow for the complexities: nothing I wrote excluded those complexities.

    You now write that ‘there are some limited types of bills that can originate in the Upper House before proceeding to the Lower House’: but the truth is the reverse of that. There are some limited types of bills that cannot originate in the Upper House; except in relation to those types of bills, the Senate has equal legislative powers with the House of Representatives (see section 53 of the Australian Constitution for details, and note the last sentence).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s