I guess I’m really saying that I don’t go along with the notion that the voters are always right and always vote in their own best interests, let alone what’s best collectively.

I’d accept that I can be wrong about these matters as well.

They are sending Feds to Noosa to inflame the situation today so it will be interesting to see if they have any effect - still think that they are just causing confusion though, I mean is it a Stalinist or a Nazi tactic they oppose?

All too complex for the swinging voter to get their head around I would suggest.

Every Queenslander could have sent in a submission to have their say with the commission. Please tell me your submission was eaten by the dog or a computer virus and that was why you had no say or maybe the punters just slept through the process!

Channeling yer inner Vogon, perhaps:

[Vogon Captain] All the planning charts and demolition orders have been on display in your local planning department in Alpha Centauri for 50 of your Earth years, and so you’ve had plenty of time to lodge any complaints and it’s far too late to make a fuss about it now!

Somehow I don’t think federal Labor will agree that blaming the punters for forced amalgamations is a winning strategy for electoral success.

In Caloundra the mayor receives $150,000 and each of the 10 councillors responsible for about 9,000 people each receives $95,000 at least. In Maroochy the mayor
receives $112,000 plus a $20,000 electorate allowance and each of the 12 councillors receives at least
$71,000 plus a $12,000 electorate allowance. They are responsible for about 12,000 people each. The mayor in Noosa receives $127,000, and nine councillors responsible for 5,500 people each receives at least $70,000. Each representative, as I understand it, also gets a motor vehicle allowance, a phone and
an office. What a rort. No wonder they are so upset.

Page 2526 Qld Hansard yesterday.

I’m quite specifically willing to blame the neighbours and some of the rellies whose political discussions I am familiar with, lovely people though they may be.

you’re quite right amused,

http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/08/08/beattie-versus-rudd/#comment-391205

but sometimes laying some the blame squarely at the feet of voters just feels good (sigh), and makes a change from railing against Howard, who as you say, wouldn’t even make into the same aircraft hangar as the World’s Worst & Wickedest Strongmen I, II, III.

and you’re quite right too Darryl, sheeting it home to the ALP….

joe2 – but when do you draw the line, when are voters ever responsible? How barking mad does a leader have to obviously be, and how low the road, before you think – whoa, what a bunch of arseholes…..

It is a real RWDB argument..blaming voters who should know better, educate themselves more, pick themselves up by their bootstraps etc….

Forced redrawing of yer local govt boundaries without yer say so is pissing off the punters and I reckon that the anger towards state Labor will translate accordingly to the federal Labor come the election.

Every Queenslander could have sent in a submission to have their say with the commission. Please tell me your submission was eaten by the dog or a computer virus and that was why you had no say or maybe the punters just slept through the process!

Are you saying that some voters will be able to separate state from Federal issues while at the same time telling me that some voters will not be able to separate State from Federal issues and you alone can tell which voters will vote which way?

The clowning of Qld Lib/Nat coalition is par for the course and I doubt that voters will consider this a major issue for a federal election.

Forced redrawing of yer local govt boundaries without yer say so is pissing off the punters and I reckon that the anger towards state Labor will translate accordingly to the federal Labor come the election.

One thing that is true is that disunity is political death and the Coalition in Queensland has that by the truckload.

And if there was a state election coming up then that would be an issue.

I really don’t buy the idea that Beattie was speaking on Rudd’s behalf over Haneef. I think the difference was a real one. Remember the row was really about the executive v. the judiciary… I think Rudd is much more sincere on where he agrees with Howard than some think.

You may be right PS, but the question is: what would a Rudd Government do? This is one area, I suspect, where pressure from that part of caucus which is not Kevin Rudd will force a change in whatever subtly media-managed way. The whole case was a knee-jerk, ad-hoc event and there will have to be a smoother way of managing events like this, which are bound to crop up again and again - without completely killing the influx of overseas-trained doctors.

Well, you gotta hope so anyway. Part of the whole idea of changing government is that you can have a fresh look at long-standing problems that the current government is too tired or embarrassed to change.

Well the Qld Nat/Lib coalition may be clowns but that’s not gunna have much of an effect when voters go to the polls later this year for the federal election. The average voter will be angry at a Labor govt and this may be enough to dissuade swinging voters to not vote for Labor federally, especially if Howard is playing populist.

Are you saying that some voters will be able to separate state from Federal issues while at the same time telling me that some voters will not be able to separate State from Federal issues and you alone can tell which voters will vote which way?

One thing that is true is that disunity is political death and the Coalition in Queensland has that by the truckload.

I mean, really !!!!!

Ambigulous

As I said, pointing out the foibles of local govt or the benefits of amalgamation isn’t sufficient. Forcing a change in govt structure - even local govt structure — without the consent of the governed is going to anger most people even if they understand the rationale for change.

So who’s gunna cop that anger come the election, especially if there’s a plebiscite on the issue on the same day?

A BESIEGED Bruce Flegg has been told he should quit as leader of the Queensland Liberal Party for the good of the state Coalition.

The Courier-Mail has learnt state Nationals MP Rob Messenger asked staff to leave a joint party room meeting before slamming Dr Flegg over his constant fumblings.

Mr Messenger told Dr Flegg he should resign to save the Coalition from disaster.

Several other Nationals MPs joined in the verbal roasting of Dr Flegg before leader Jeff Seeney was forced to call for calm.

The fracas erupted after Dr Flegg outraged Nationals and Liberal MPs on Tuesday when he issued a media release highlighting his first year anniversary as Liberal leader.

It diverted attention away from the Coalition’s attack on the Government’s forced council amalgamation legislation, with Premier Peter Beattie making fun of Dr Flegg’s record.

But the tension in the Coalition is unlikely to spark an immediate move against Dr Flegg, with MPs preferring to wait until after this week’s Parliament sittings to call a leadership spill.

The numbers in the Liberal partyroom remain locked at four each for Dr Flegg and rival Tim Nicholls with the Liberal leader surviving with his own vote. But efforts are being made to convince Dr Flegg’s supporters that his time is up.

It is understood Queensland Liberal president Warwick Parer recently spoke about the leadership issue with deputy Liberal leader Mark McArdle, who supports Dr Flegg.

Mr Seeney admitted Dr Flegg’s leadership had dominated internal meetings and he remained angry about the anniversary release.

He levelled a thinly-veiled criticism at Liberal MPs over their reluctance to make a decision on Dr Flegg’s future.

“I don’t have any choice or any say in a number of issues. I have to work with what I have to work with,” he said.

Mr Beattie continued to mock the Liberals in Parliament, urging the eight MPs to keep Dr Flegg because he was Labor’s best asset.

“Bruce, if we could give you a couple of numbers, would you let them come into your caucus,” he asked.

“They will vote for you. They will stick with you. Do we have a couple of supporters to vote for Bruce?”