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.
- Comment
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
John Quiggin 
Yes John.
I have almost been struck dumb by the barrage of taxpayer funded propaganda churning its way out of Treasury, then through the many streets of Brisbane.
But, should I vote for Campbell in the light of these media revelations ? ( 🙂 )
John
Thanks John. The age of entitlement is not over when it comes to politicians helping themselves to our money to fund their own self-promotion. I would like to see all opposition parties pledge to undertake an Auditor-General’s inquiry. I wish such an inquiry would have powers to go after personal assets, homes etc to retrieve proceeds of crime.
Campbell Newman could not wait till the real Governor arrived back from holiday. He got his own appointee to sign the document to call the election. This is an ambush election and unregistered voters have a mere four days to get on the roll or be disenfranchised. Those won’t be LNP voters you can bet. So, our Premier doesn’t think he can win without adopting some slippery moves to gain advantage. We should show him how unimpressed we are.
I’ve noticed buckets of Qld government propaganda in the online ads I get. The main one was the one about hospital surgery waiting lists (“You’re not just a number anymore”, or something like that) with people standing around covered in numbers.
An interesting strategy has been adopted by the unions. It was promoted under the guise of journalism a few days ago.
They are urging voters to “Number every box and put the LNP last”. Which is an abstract way of saying “Vote ALP” without actually saying so.
I like optional preference voting in Queensland because I get to vote without being forced to vote for ALP & LNP. Neither of them get my vote.
Newman today in his press conference was warning against “wasting” our votes on non-duopoly parties. Hopefully they’re both terrified.
Beattie did much the same in 2004 – Feb 7 polling day with writs issued Jan 13.
d
@Megan
Newman warned us not to waste our votes on non-duopoly parties? I don’t really think a state premier should be saying things like that. Rather he should be educating people rather than misleading them. Politics is confusing enough as it is without people holding office using their bully pulpit to say confusing things. If someone puts a vote for a minor party first then their vote will count as much as anyone’s as long as they put one of the duopoly parties as their second choice.
If think there are a fair number of people who don’t understand that if one’s goal is to vote the current government out, then they are quite free to vote for a minor party as their first preference, but then, whatever one happens to think of them, the ALP has to be the second preference if one’s vote is to have the best chance of being the one that kicks out the incumbents.
@Ronald Brak
I disagree. My vote will not go to either of the ALP/LNP duopoly. But it will still count.
If the recent trend continues then less seats will be held by the duopoly parties.
In a uni-cameral parliament like ours, all we need is a few seats held by the non-duopoly to potentially hold the balance of power.
Sadly, as is always the case, when it comes to truly bad legislation the duopoly will vote together to circumvent the non-duopoly parties.
To avoid eternal moderation, Antony Green’s Qld election site link (you’ll have to insert the prefix):
abc.net.au/news/qld-election-2015/guide/
The ALP, apparently determined to lose the election, are serving up a large bunch of stalwart has-been hacks (many of whom were part of the record-breaking losing team in 2012) in some key seats.
Grace Grace in Brisbane? Cynical, but typical. No clue.
Out of 89 seats, the LNP currently hold 73.
The ALP hold 9.
Independents and KAP hold the remaining 7.
To get below the dictatorial level the LNP must lose at least 29 seats (quite possible).
Also, the ALP must win a total of no more than 44 seats (highly probable that they won’t).
OMG, JQ you watch TV? I am aghast. You watch channels that have ads on? I am doubleplus aghast. I can see a new TV show in the making: “When Intellectuals watch TV.” Intellectuals are sent to Bogans’ houses to explain how to them how the shows and ads they watch generate false consciousness. You know I am joking of course because I definitely do hold to the false cosnciousness theory.
Hard to see the ALP winning. But what’s-his-name might get tipped out in Ashgrove. The real problem is capitalism. The near problem is the neoliberal duopoly. Vote against the duopoly but don’t vote for right-wingers or religious fundamentalists.
@Ikonoclast
Here is a serious hypothetical question:
Which do you think would be the worse of these two options:
1. LNP loses, ALP wins and forms majority government (i.e. holds more than 45 seats and governs in its own right); or
2. Neither of ALP nor LNP holds enough seats to govern in their own right and the balance of power seats are held by, for example, KAP or PUP and independents (i.e. one of the duopoly forms minority government relying on some or all of those seats)?
At this stage I am of the view that the worst thing that can happen in this election is for one of the duopoly parties to win outright.
Interested in your choice between 1 and 2, and others thoughts too.
@Megan
Obviously if you only number one square and not for the ALP or LNP candidate then your vote can never count for either the ALP or the LNP, whereas if you number every square the probability is that your vote will end up counting for either the ALP or the LNP; however, it is technically possible to number every square and still not have your vote count for either. For example, Gladstone voters who have voted ‘1’ for Liz Cunningham and ‘2’ for the ALP have never had their votes count for the ALP, and voters who have voted ‘1’ for her and ‘2’ for the LNP have never had their vote count for the LNP.
Therefore the union advice to number every square and put the LNP last is not strictly identical with advising a vote for the ALP — although undoubtedly that’s the probable effect in most cases, and almost certainly intentionally so.
Even optional preferential voting is confusing enough for some people that they don’t grasp that choosing to indicate a second preference can never hurt the chances of the candidate the first preference is given to. (Yes, I realise that this is not an affirmative argument in favour of giving a second preference; it’s not intended to be. People should vote however they want to; but this is precisely what they are hindered from doing if they don’t understand how the voting system works.)
I think Queenslanders should work to get their Upper House restored – it is quite obviously a key part of the constitutional structure of Westminster parliaments, and from the example of Queensland it leaves the power of the Lower House far too unchecked.
It is quite disorderly and ridiculous that the QLD Upper House has been abolished for this lengthy period – although not as ridiculous as Tony Abbott was at the G20 going into the old QLD Upper House and saying to world leaders “This room symbolizes the limitations on our power” – when the room no longer was in use
Newman is stretching the Beattie precedent in a couple of ways. First, he has gone a week earlier, which matters at this time of year. Second, Beattie ran pretty much the full three year term (2001 election was Feb 17, 2004 was Feb 7) whereas Newman is going well ahead of time.
@Megan
My view is that a minority government is more likely than either of an LNP or ALP outright win (odds maybe 40-30-30), and also more desirable. My ideal would be an ALP government depending on either Wellington or Greens for its majority.
Paul Burns over at ClimatePlus reports that a comment at the Conversation claims that Newman was about to be trounced by Springboard, and this was the reason for the haste.
The search for a rationale for the sudden rush to the polls is well and truly on. Hence the speculation that a leadership coup was in the offing. Sounds a trifle implausible to me but something certainly happened virtually overnight to shift the planned date from late Feb. people will undoubtedly speculate and that won’t help the LNP.
@Megan
I agree pretty much with JQ that the best of the realistic scenarios is a minority ALP government depending on Greens support. I would like to say depending on Greens and S*o*c*i*a*l-ist Alliance support but a few things stop me. I don’t know if there will be S*o*c*i*a*l-ist Alliance candidates and so far I can’t find that part of their manifesto which states how they intend to gain power, how they view bourgeois democracy and what they might replace it with. I know these questions are academic (as in hypothetical) right now and probably for a long time to come. But what people intend to do with and to power itself is the key litmus test for who they really are and what they stand for. Once people get their hands on power they seem to universally disappoint one’s hopes no matter what part of the political spectrum they come from.
One could reasonably view western democracy, historically and contemporarily regarded, as not so much putting power in the hands of the people but putting it in the hands of proxies (representatives) for the people. In practice, especially under capitalism, this has removed power from hereditary monarchs and aristocrats (though far from entirely in the UK) and just bumped it down a bit to capitalists and oligarchs. The US constitution can be seen (unless you are blind and daft) to have been explicitly written to consolidate and protect power at the oligarchic level and prevent genuine democracy which US republicans (in the broad little “r” sense) see as and consistently call “mob rule”. We can see from this the contempt and fear they have for real democracy.
It seems to me (though I have never studied this in detail), that Australia’s constitutional democracy is a bit better than the US model and did to some extent move some real power a bit further down towards the people. However, it has always remained essentially bourgeois democracy. The proof in the pudding is what is happening to our democracy under late stage capitalism. It has become “bought and suborned” as I term it. The oligarchs (mostly mining and finance oligarchs in Australia’s case) buy each of the duopoly parties via donations to both parties. The message is clear: “Play the “two parties – one ideology” game or “get your water cut off” i.e. funds cut off. This is why we get privatisation, lack of proper mineral taxes, lack of wealth taxes, lack of equity, lack of humane refugee policy etc. from both major parties. They simply do what the oligarchs tell them to do.
All policy is initiated by the oligarachs with the exception of some cynical populist sops from the politicians to buy votes. The people can initiate no policy. They can sometimes slow or prevent policy for a time but the best they can ever do is play a holding game for while. Then late stage capitalism advances again and overcomes another bulwark of the people’s defences and rights. We can see this process and program virtually completed in the USA which sees the oligarchic elite in alliance with the secret state and in complete charge.
I am not a Marxist-Leninist, however Lenin made an insightful analysis of the Australian Labor Party in 1913.
“Labour Government in Australia – 1913
The parliamentary elections took place in Australia recently. The Labour Party, which had the majority in the Lower House, having forty-four seats out of seventy-five, suffered defeat. Now it only has thirty-six seats out of seventy-five. The majority has passed to the Liberals, but this majority is very unstable, because in the Upper House, thirty out of the thirty-six seats are occupied by Labour.
What a peculiar capitalist country is this in which Labour predominates in the Upper House and recently predominated in the Lower House and yet the capitalist system does not suffer any danger! An English correspondent of a German Labour newspaper recently explained this circumstance, which is very often misrepresented by bourgeois writers.
The Australian Labour Party does not even claim to be a S*o*c*i*a*l-ist Party. As a matter of fact it is a liberal-bourgeois party, and the so-called Liberals in Australia are really Conservatives.
This strange and incorrect use of terms in naming parties is not unique. In America, for example, the slave-owners of yesterday are called Democrats, and in France, the petty bourgeois anti-s*o*c*i*a*l-ists are called “Radical S*o*c*i*a*l-ists.” In order to understand the real significance of parties one must examine, not their labels, but their class character and the historical conditions of each separate country.
Capitalism in Australia is still quite young. The country is only just beginning to take shape as an independent state. The workers, for the most part, are emigrants from England. They left England at the time when Liberal-Labour politics held almost unchallenged sway there and when the masses of the English workers were Liberals. Even up till now the majority of the skilled factory workers in England are Liberals and semi-Liberals. This is the result of the exceptionally favourable, monopolist position England occupied in the second half of the last century. Only now are the masses of the workers in England beginning (slowly) to turn toward s*o*c*i*a*l-ism.
And while in England the so-called “Labour Party” represents an alliance between the s*o*c*i*a*l-ist trade unions and the extreme opportunist Independent Labour Party, in Australia, the Labour Party represents purely the non-socialist trade unionist workers.
The leaders of the Australian Labour Party are trade union officials, an element which everywhere represents a most moderate and “capital serving” element, and in Australia it is altogether peaceful, and purely liberal.
The ties between the separate states of Australia in united Australia, are still very weak. The Labour Party has to concern itself with developing and strengthening the country and with creating a central government.
In Australia the Labour Party has done what in other countries was done by the Liberals, namely, introduced a uniform customs tariff for the whole country, a uniform Education Act, a uniform Land Tax and uniform Factory Acts.
Naturally, when Australia is finally developed and consolidated as an independent capitalist state the conditions of the workers will change, as also will the liberal Labour Party which will make way for a S*o*c*i*a*l-ist Labour Party. Australia serves to illustrate the conditions under which exceptions to the rule are possible. The rule is: a s*o*c*i*a*l-ist Labour Party in a capitalist country. The exception is: a liberal Labour Party which arises only for a short time as a result of conditions that are abnormal for capitalism.
Those liberals in Europe and in Russia who try to “preach” to the people that class war is unnecessary by pointing to the example of Australia, only deceive themselves and others. It is ridiculous to think of applying Australian conditions (an undeveloped, young country, populated by Liberal English workers) to countries in which a state and developed capitalism have long been established. – Lenin – June 1913.
There is much food for thought there. There are some anachronistic ideas but there is an important core of truth. “… the liberal Labour Party which will make way for a s*o*c*i*a*l-ist Labour Party.” Of course, one must cavil with the certainty of prediction (it hasn’t happened yet) and with any possible initimation that reform will come from within the Labor Party. The Labor party is unreformable just as capitalism is unreformable. Democratic S*o*c*i*a*l-ism must come from the people or not at all. It won’t come from a bourgeois party and it won’t come from a bourgeois system. We can say “bourgeois” equals “capitalism-supporting”.
More broadly now, the US will never allow “democracy in one country” let alone “s*o*c*i*a*l-ism in one country”, as least so far as its hegomony extends. To the extent that the US allows us to govern ourselves here in Australia that is the extent to which they see us as compliant and no danger to oligarchic capitalism.
I could talk about how real democracy will never exist until worker cooperative democracy exists in all enterprises in the nation. The workers need to own and manage all enterprises. The specialist and managerialist boss class and the capitalist owner class need to be abolished (but the individuals treated well and absorbed into the worker democracy). But this will never happen under current conditions and it can’t be made to happen before its time. And its time might never come. Capitalism is undefeatable now. It is like a virus which has spread too far. It is killing the host and it is completely unstoppable and untreatable. The only thing that can happen is that capitalism will kill or radically alter its host. The host of course is the biosphere. Capitalism is in fundamental contradiction with the requirements for a livable biosphere.
Capitalism will destroy itself when the final threshold carrying capacity for capitalism is exceeded. On the other hand, the carrying capacity required for life (any life) and even for some human life is much less than the carrying capacity required for capitalism. Thus human life could survive the collapse of capitalism. What is required is a manfiesto, a program, to be developed to illucidate how we must survive and organise after the self-induced collapse of capitalism. This program must include invioable precepts to prevent the recurrence of capitalism or anything like it. Detailing this program is not a task for a blog.
@Megan
Megan, if one’s goal is to vote out the incumbents then one needs to put the ALP as the first or second preference to have the highest odds of doing that.
For example if Flo Blow votes 1. Super Cool Party 2. ALP 3. Moderately Cool Party, then if neither of the duopoly get a majority of votes it will go to second preferences and Flo’s second preference will then be counted for the ALP. It is possible for third and lower preferences to be counted, but that doesn’t happen very often.
Note, as I made clear, this is if one’s goal is to vote out the incumbents. If one’s goal is different from that then this might not be the best strategy to take. And it’s also possible that what I think you mean by the term duopoly does not exist in your seat.
I could be wrong about all this, as this stuff is confusing.
@Ronald Brak
You are wrong in the case of full preferential voting. In most cases, the LNP is more likely to be defeated if the ALP candidate is eliminated before a centrist candidate. The centrist gets all the ALP preferences, but many of their preferences would flow to the LNP.
With optional preferential voting, the crucial question is whose preferences are likely to exhaust. If Labor goes for “Just vote 1”, as in some past elections, then eliminating the Labor candidate will help the LNP
This from the Electoral Commision Qld site. I am presuming this is a real not a bogus site.
QUOTE
Optional Preferential Voting
Optional Preferential Voting (OPV) has been used in Queensland State elections since 1992. OPV is a unique voting system giving voters a choice to vote for one candidate, more than one or, all candidates on the ballot paper. Voters can cast a valid vote by either:
• expressing a single primary preference for one candidate only (marking only one square, leaving all the others blank)
• expressing a partial distribution of preferences by voting for some, but not all candidates on the ballot paper (marking some but not all squares)
• expressing a full distribution of preferences (marking each and every square in order of preference).
back to top
Counting the Votes
Ballot papers are counted in each polling booth after the close of polling at 6.00pm on polling day and included in the election night count.
After polling day the Returning Officer for each electoral district counts all types of votes including absent, postal and pre-poll votes. These are all added to the official count by the Returning Officer.
The counting of the votes is done in stages;
• Firstly ballot papers are sorted into formal and informal votes. Ballot papers without a clear first preference are set aside as informal votes and are not admitted to the count.
• The first preferences for each candidate are then counted. A candidate is declared “elected” if they have an absolute majority of the formal first preference votes (an absolute majority is more than 50 per cent of the formal votes).
If no candidate has an absolute majority the transfer of preferences is done by:
• Eliminating the candidate with the least amount of first preference votes. That candidate’s second preference votes are then distributed amongst the remaining candidates. Ballot papers with no second preference are set aside as “exhausted”.
This process is continued until a candidate has an absolute majority of the votes and that candidate is then declared “elected”.
END QUOTE.
@John Quiggin
Thanks for that. I made an effort to understand how voting works last time I had to vote, but clearly I botched it up. Obviously I need to make another effort.
Based on the above quote from the Electoral Commision Qld site let me run a hypothetical.
My position;
1. LNP is total anethema to me but then some others are too.
2. ALP is little better to me.
3. I might get some other candidates I “like” in my electorate.
4. My bottom line, based on 1 above, is that my preferenced vote must NEVER get to the LNP.
Let us assume I get these candidates placed on my card in the order that would allow me to donkey vote to a chosen stopping point to get the voting result I wanted for my vote;
1. Democratic Worker Co-op S*o*c*i*a*l-ists
2. Australian Greens
3. ALP
4. Libertarians
5. God’s Awful Fundamentalists
6. LNP
I presume I could simply vote as follows and leave the rest of the card empty.
1. Democratic Worker Co-op S*o*c*i*a*l-ists
2. Australian Greens
3. ALP
But to vote simply as below would be dangerous as the LNP could well slip ahead of the one realistic option that would a little LESS worse.
1. Democratic Worker Co-op S*o*c*i*a*l-ists
2. Australian Greens
I could also vote the following to make a (futile) point a priori assuming that no-one but LNP and ALP, in that order, have a chance in my electorate which is a very good assumption.
1. Democratic Worker Co-op S*o*c*i*a*l-ists
2. Australian Greens
3. ALP
4. Libertarians
5. God’s Awful Fundamentalists
But, since that is pointless on two counts (nobody but LNP and ALP stand a chance most likely anyway and Libertarians, God’s Awful Fundamentalists and LNP are all really anathema to me, then I should stick with;
1. Democratic Worker Co-op S*o*c*i*a*l-ists
2. Australian Greens
3. ALP
Any comments?
Ikonoclast, in the light of David Leyonhjelm’s voting record and stated positions thus far, I think there are good grounds, on balance, for preferring the LDP libertarians to the LNP.
@Ikonoclast
If I understand the process correctly, then your third preference (ALP) might not “kick in” at all because the LNP might get to the required >50% earlier.
Therefore, you should vote 1 ALP (if, when push comes to shove that’s where you want vote going at any cost if it is to be most likely to count toward the defeat of the LNP in your electorate).
In my electorate (most likely to be “safe” LNP) neither of the duopoly will get my vote.
The possibility of a hung parliament seems to have the duopoly terrified, good.
Quote from Newman in BrisbaneTimes:
It will be an interesting unpopularity contest.
Megan @24:
This isn’t quite right. If the LNP gets to the required >50% earlier, it is immaterial whether the other <50% of votes are for Labor or the Greens.
If the LNP vote remains below 50%, and the Greens candidate is eliminated before the Labor candidate, a vote that goes 1 Green 2 Labor will be just as much a vote for Labor as one that goes 1 Labor.
What is really important is that voters who vote 1 Green make sure they preference Labor ahead of the Coalition and other right-wing parties and candidates.
@Paul Norton
My point was that, using Ikon’s voting card, if the neither LNP nor ALP get >50% on first preferences then second preferences kick in.
Let’s say his DWCS party gets knocked out at that point. Ikon’s ballot then goes to the Greens. But some DWCS voters will number the boxes differently and it is possible that their votes nudge LNP over the line.
LNP wins.
If he is willing to vote ALP and wants the best chance of defeating LNP he should vote 1 ALP.
Perhaps what we really need is enough people to do as did 83% of the voters in Jose Saramgo’s novel, “Seeing”.
Saramago.
@ZM
New Zealand has a unicameral parliament. The legislative bodies of Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, and of the Canadian provinces, are all unicameral. How do they function worse than they would if they were bicameral? Perhaps not qualifying as ‘Westminster system’ (depending on how you define that), Denmark, Finland, Greece, Norway, Portugal, and Sweden have all adopted unicameralism. How do they function worse for it?
If your highest priority is to stop candidate X from getting elected, then you should number (sequentially) all other candidates.
Your vote will be equally effective (or equally ineffective) in stopping candidate X no matter what order you number the other candidates, so long as you number all of them (sequentially).
Scotland , Wales, and Northern Ireland have Westminster over them with two houses. Possibly they should try to get two houses themselves, I am not sure.
Likely New Zealand has problems caused by a missing Upper House. The parliaments of non-Anglo cultures might not need the strict oversight of a stern and conscientious Upper House – but I’m not sure because I have never read a study on this matter.
Queensland gets all sorts of political corruption and strongman political tactics more than Victoria which I blame on the lack of parliamentary discipline caused by this overly lengthy abolishment of the Upper House. You might be statist and blame the people of Queensland themselves – but if they restore the Upper House then we can see if it happens to be the fault of the people or the fault of the missing Upper House that is meant to act to as well symbolize the limitations of parliamentarians’ powers as our Prime Minister has told all of us, should the House be used again.
I have a newer thought on the urgency for this election. Campbell and Tony appear to support each others positions. I suspect that Abbott is planning an early election this year and has asked Newman to sort out Queensland so that there is a clear run for a Federal election.
Are you thinking a double dissolution to get the second budget/other through the parliament?
Ye gods, is anyone seriously thinking that a bicameral Northern Ireland legislative assembly is more possible than an united Ireland?
Yes, ZM. I think Abbott is insane enough to do just that. So Federal election in August or September.
@Ikonoclast
Thanks for that, Ikonoclast. I think I see where I went wrong.
That doesn’t mean I’m not still confused, it just means I can see why I’m confused.
@Ikonoclast
The OPV explanation includes the option:
“expressing a partial distribution of preferences by voting for some, but not all candidates on the ballot paper (marking some but not all squares)”
But later on:
“Ballot papers without a clear first preference are set aside as informal votes and are not admitted to the count. ”
So non-ordered votes are the equivalent of “votes blancs”? The commission should be clearer on this.
@ZM
Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland have Westminster ‘over’ them, and the Canadian provinces have Ottawa ‘over’ them, but then so does Queensland have Canberra ‘over’ it.
Otherwise you’re just guessing. You haven’t got the evidence to justify your insistence that unicameralism causes problems; the fact that Queensland has problems is not enough to establish that. There are problems everywhere. Corruption exists in lots of places, and so do strongman political tactics, both in places with unicameral systems and in places with bicameral systems. You can’t even say that Queensland is the only Australian State that has had problems with corruption and strongman political tactics, not if you’ve paid any attention to the history of (bicameral) New South Wales.
@James Wimberley
The explanation seems clear to me. If your vote has a valid first preference (just one), it will be counted in favour of that candidate, regardless of how the other squares have been numbered (or not), but if your vote does not have a (single) valid first preference it won’t be counted in favour of any candidate (after all, how could it be?). What sort of ‘non-ordered’ vote are you asking about?
@James Wimberley
I agree they should be clearer. I read it as;
Your ballot paper should have at least a clear “1” in a box to be prima facie valid.
I wonder if that means one tick in a box would accepted as if it were a “1” in a box. I doubt they would accept that.
I wonder how they would treat a ballot with a clear “1” no “2” and then “3”,”4″,”5″. Would they secondarily declare it invalid? Would they assign a first preference but distribute no preferences thereafter? Would they accept the “3” as a “2” and so on? I doubt the last.
J.D.
“You can’t even say that Queensland is the only Australian State that has had problems with corruption and strongman political tactics, not if you’ve paid any attention to the history of (bicameral) New South Wales.”
I think perhaps New South Wales’ problems spring from the state’s neighborly proximity to Queensland – as the parliamentarians there look enviously to the Quuenskand parliamentarians without limitations on their power and try to do the same. A unicameral parliament in our federation is surely a bad influence indeed. . I will also blame the overly bossy ways of the Rudd government on Rudd’s having worked in Queensland and got use to not having the oversight of a proper Upper House.
Maybe Clive Palmer could take up a campaign to restore the rigors of a functioning instead of empty and unused Upper House to Queensland
Bilb,
You might be right. The national security and overseas issues probably mean Abbott would think he can run on that, and Scott Morrison being moved from the immigration portfolio, etc. interesting possibility – if they lose it would mean Labor would be the one’s negotiating in Paris so a double dissolution mid year might be good …
I have noticed this past year a lot of rumblings about senate obstructionism or outrage at common folk like Ricky Muir getting in to the Senate. The reserve bank chairman Stevens spoke about it recently and business leaders too here:
http://m.smh.com.au/business/leading-businesses-call-for-senate-reform-to-restore-order-20150105-12icgq.html
I went to a talk in Gisborne on the senate reform proposals that had a panel made up of a labor woman, a liberal woman, and three locals one of whom was Don Watson. It was very disappointing that the Labor woman made disparaging remarks about how could someone like Ricky Muir get into the senate – then the audience )which was mostly older people since it was a University of the Third Age event ) showed some displeasure and then she said something along the lines of – even if Ricky Muir was Albert Einstein his election to the Senate would not be good – this was not a very polite statement either especially from a Labor person.
@ZM
The problem of corruption in New South Wales dates back to before Queensland’s Legislative Council was abolished. For that matter, Victoria had similar problems at times before Queensland’s Legislative Council was abolished. So your speculative explanation does not survive contact with evidence.
Wow, Ikonoclast, it is a bit rich (pun) for the biggest businesses demanding reform to prevent distortions of government. Presumably Murdoch would be one of those and many of the companies that mounted a media campaign to protect their treasuries from the resources tax.
Yes, there is a game afoot, I suspect. Judith Sloan at Catallaxy came out defending Abbott for his disinterest in the SA fires, claiming a media failing for their criticism of him. My comments on the freedom of speech Libertarian site are auto censored at the Cat, but this is (off topic) what I wrote, as I lay the blame for the ever increasing property loss in bushfires at the feet of the LNP party….
“I’ll put this thought to you, Judith, whereas I agree that Tony Abbott racing around charred paddocks for photo op hugs is a repulsive notion, equally particularly as Abbott does not have real empathy for people and his attempts to seem as though he does always display the hollowness of the gesture, as for the reality that a Prime Minister’s primary role should be to affairs of State, Abbott should be mindful of his culpability for the loss of property and environmental damage from these extreme bushfires.
As the current leader of the Liberal National Party he must take responsibility for the total failure of the Australian Government to mount effective extreme fire barriers near fire vulnerable communities around Australia. Over 10 years ago I raised the issue of the growing vulnerability to extreme fires, enhanced by Global Warming, with my local member Kerry Bartlett, the then chief government whip, presenting him with the measures that communities should take to defend their boundaries from the high velocity ground level super heated gass blasts that are becoming a feature of today’s very dangerous and deadly bush fires.
These measures involve the planting of a range of dense fire resistant trees and shrubs on the perimeters of our communities. This need was observed in the 2014 Springwood fire which caused the loss of 200 homes and the near loss of another 200. There were a number of houses that would certainly have burned had it not been for their hedges of low combustible plants such as camellias. Ironically this is the electorate of the, thankfully long gone Kerry Bartlett, who completely failed his community in his complete disregard for the information. Finally over a decade later the CSIRO mounted a rush study of the fire damage with particular focus on the houses that survived, and why.
So, Judith, I agree with you. It is better that a climate skeptic Prime Minister and leader of the LNP who failed to appreciate the ever increasing danger to communities of climate enhanced fire storms and to research protection methods, should stay away from the scorched earth and not seek to make political capital from his abject failure as a community leader.”
and in support of that
Click to access Case%20Studies.pdf
So the fact that the ultra right troops are rallying around their highly compromised idol (Abbott) at the time when he is attempting to appear statesmanlike adds a little bit of evidence of a precampaign campaign for re-election. I feel sure that Abbott is perfectly capable of seeing Campbell Newman as a sacrificial offering to appease an negative public.
Sorry, that comment was to ZM’s input.
J.D.
You have grossly misrepresented my position. I certainly never said that all the corruption in the world since time immemorial is the fault of the missing Upper House of the State of Queensland, and that the abolishment of the above was the original fall of mankind. How can you attribute such an idea to me?!?
Curious, among all those ads, not a single one reminding young people to enrol to vote by 5pm this Saturday. Campbell probably didn’t want to interrupt their holidays.
It looks like the Qld LNP is about to become the HCP (Headless Chook Party) with their deputy leader quiting at the election.
@BilB
If you’re thinking of Tim Mulherin, he’s the ALP deputy.
Oops I stand corrected. We should be so lucky that Seeney stands down or is voted out.