I’ve got a feeling I’m actually responsible for dubbing Queensland Nationals leader Lawrence Springborg “The Borg”. Interesting that he’s run with it - showing off t-shirts last week at UQ O-Week emblazoned “The Borg is Back in 09″. If that’s the image he wants to present, I have a feeling he hasn’t actually watched a lot of Star Trek. Unless the Queensland Nats stand for relentless assimilation of all that exists to a hivemind. On the other hand…
I’m not the first, though, to remark that he’s running a Kevin07 style campaign, though I’d disagree with Courier-Mail columnist Margaret Lawson that style without substance is politically effective. After all, Lawrence did the ironing in a towel stunt last time around, and had the fridge magnets, but of course was dumped by his own party in effect after losing a second successive election.
Lawrence Springborg represents a new generation of Queensland leaders with youth, energy and fresh ideas on his side.
And what are these fresh ideas? We can get more than a clue from token non-culture warrior columnist at The Australian, Ross Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald’s puff piece could have been written by Springborg’s press secretary. It reads like pure astroturf - not a scintilla of political insight or critical acumen.
Fitzgerald is probably talking up Springborg in order to cover his bases as he comes under fire again for being handed - without any tender process - a contract worth 900 grand to write a history of Queensland. Last year, the Nats were quite rightly, under former leader Jeff Seeney, scathing in their description of this episode. But, anyway, what are the Borg’s stunning fresh ideas?
He has a number of other innovative ideas, not least of which is allowing conscience votes on a wide range of social issues and advocating the breath-testing of members of parliament. If it is good enough for the parliament to legislate for police officers, aeroplane pilots and train and bus drivers, why should not MPs be regularly and randomly tested for booze and other drugs?
The first “idea” is simply a way to get himself off the hook the religious right infiltration of his party has him hanging on. Booze and drug testing for MPs? Whatevs. Nothing about infrastructure, health, police, Indigenous affairs, or education, of course. Which was the big problem last time. Aside from his self-generated personality cult and his one note song of conservative amalgamation, Springborg stands for nothing. Except personal ambition and good old National style porkbarrelling. No wonder most Libs in their right minds don’t want a bar of his “United Conservative Party”.
Cross-posted at PollieGraph.
Well Springborg copped a flogging in question time today and it was an attack from Springborg on the Labor Party not disendorsing Pat Purcell that backfired. Despite the youth image Springborg would like to project it is the old guard from an earlier era, Lingard, Hobbs and Seeney who were made to look very dodgy today along with the usual problems of McArdle and his unexplained Mortgage rort background.
One thing that is noticable is that this year the coalition have changed their approach to question time. In the first sitting week every question was preceeded by a corny slogan that fell flat but today they actually targeted a series of different ministers with the same basic question.
http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/view/legislativeAssembly/hansard/documents/2008.pdf/2008_02_26_DAILY.pdf
Here’s to the miracle of Lycra, Latex and women like Jeri Ryan. Mark, you’ve got a way to go to beat this gratuitous 7 of 9 reference.
As a general rule compared to past question times Springborg has added some structure to question time that has been absent in the past and he has dramatically lifted his profile in the local media in the past three weeks.
So far the government Ministers have lifted and handled him well but things are different to what we have seen in the past. The time on the backbench has changed him and he seems to have thought about some tactics. He has also taken failed Liberal candidate Cameron Thompson on board as his policy advisor.
He made a speech last week that is on the Nationals website where he seems to have toned down his Climate change denialism, but this was negated by a media release from David Gibson, National, member for Gympie who is as far in denial as ever.
http://www.qld.nationals.org.au/news/default.asp?action=article&ID=2581&Archived=true&Archived=true&Archived=true&Archived=true&Archived=true&Archived=true&Archived=true&Archived=true&Archived=true
Climate change “denial” - yawn -
Climate change is a fundamentalist religion which he has not convereted to.
And this matters how?
Gosh, satp, ever considered a job as a policy advisor to Lawrence? Sounds like you and he are thinking on a similar wavelength. You may not approve of his teetotal ways and random booze tests, but I’m sure the hard yards of developing National Party policy isn’t too demanding a gig compared to running a pub.
Eh? The borgster is an *ugh* TEETOTALLER?
Why didn’t you say so?
The dopey inbred twit is a climate change denialist eh? (Always did think his head looked a bit of a funny shape).
Whining National Party yokels who are stuck in the 1920s, just what we don’t need!
QLD labor seems to be acting more like the Borg at the moment Mark.
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,23282470-3102,00.html
But my fav character was always Q
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_(Star_Trek)
And I read that speech too steve. I also know several people who attended the Urban Development Institute of Australia speech by Springer (maybe that’ll catch on too or maybe just draw attention to socioeconomic status and media habits!) who were impressed with what he had to say on housing affordability. Apparently he spoke on indigenous issues though that was in an informal manner and wasn’t recorded in the speech and probably doesn’t wash well with the party. I’d suggest he is far more moderate than many give him credit for.
Oops,
Q the character not the letter. lol.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkmazdnwBds
Sorry Mark,
At the risk of sounding like The Borg’s sock puppet for a brief moment I just have to dispel a bit of a misnomer that the Opposition has no policy. In just the last few weeks at least they have released two I have been interested in. The first, fixed four year terms so QLD can be like every other modern democracy. Second, the idea of a bottle deposit scheme like in SA which was proposed by Opposition Sustainability minister (and in my view one guy who could be a decent leader) David Gibson and backed by CUA chairman Ian Kiernan. Both these will more than likely be assimilated by the QLD government. It sort of reminds me when the Howard Huggers used to always claim Kevin Rudd never had any policy (he also proposed fixed terms) but then pretty much adopted what he said.
IMO
Benjo, four year terms has been Qld Labor policy for a long time (and actually I’m opposed to it, but that’s another story). In this case, it’s Borg assimilating himself to Bligh.
AS far back as I can see it is on a state level, Borg had it in 2004 but if you have evidence to the contrary would love to see it. I know many in the Labor Party (my brother included) have suggested it and Kevin proposed it at a federal level but wasn’t aware that they had it as policy on a state level. Good to there will be a ref on it. I’d like hear your objections to it mark? Maybe a thread on the ref?
Beattie was always pushing it, I think, Benjo, and the Nats said no. I could be wrong, though, and I’m going on memory and have to dash this morning so don’t have time to check. Do you have a link for the referendum suggestion for a thread? I’ll happily set out my objections when I have time and in a post specifically on that topic.
In my capacity as (recently appointed by Mark) policy advisor to the National Party I must state that my recollection is that to date the NP has consistently opposed both fixed terms and 4-year terms.
A diametric switch of policy direction would now have to be justified with a VERY good reason. I cannot think of one.
The Liberals are now dredging the bottom of the lucky dip barrell for a new leader.
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/queensland/mcardle-accuses-government-of-smear-campaign/2008/02/28/1203788481278.html
I
I read it back in January over the oz.
“Mr Springborg, who also raised the issue in 2004, said he would guarantee bipartisan support of fixed four-year terms if Ms Bligh also improved parliamentary and ministerial accountability measures.”
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,23092225-2702,00.html?from=public_rss
steve,
Yeah looks like it is tit for tat stuff. Trade you one Purcell for on McCardle sort of stuff. We witnessed this sort of stuff over the Burke affair federally. Thing is, if Labor drops Purcell they’ll still hang on to that seat. If the Coalition drops McCardle they drop their deputy leader. Got to hurt. Big difference. Big difference in what each minister did too. To be fair.
Benjo, the biggest difference is that Purcell has already said he will not be running for Labor at the next election. Neither is he in line to be Attorney General and if the Libs outpoll the Nats, Premier of this state. McArdle has cooked his goose by not straightening this out years ago, now he will forever be a lameduck Leader unable to seriously tackle the Government on any issue of accountability. It also makes the Ironingborg look as weak as water. Goobye Mark, time for a redraw of the Liberal lucky dip.
The Opposition has made a severe tactical mistake this week in trying to play the Pat Purcell hand. In chess terms it is the equivalent of sacrificing a queen for a pawn.
Mark McArdle’s position is untenable because it is he who needs to be in the position of holding the Government accountable and now McArdle himself is in a position of weakness where he can’t be considered accountable. Therefore he has no choice but to go.
McCardle (whom nobody had heard of until the 28-2-2008) was Eight years ago partner in a law firm in which another of the partners pulled some shonky stuff.
Purcell was jobbing his staff, presumably members of PSU. Yet a party of ex-union leaders is allowing him to remain in their midst and I don’t hear any condemnation.
Un-buh-leave-abull.
Un-buh-leave-abull that $M30 can just disappear off the face of the planet while McArdle was the legal firm’s compliance officer. Never has he attempted to explain where the money went.
Steve, are you confused about which firm lost the money? It was not the legal firm. Er.. and it is not as if the money was sitting piled up on a pallet in a strong room, and the next morning it was “missing”. But anyway.
None of this “look over here at McArdle the myopic accountant” in any way detracts from the conduct of Purcell, who was physically assualting union members.
And a party of largely ex-union leaders is sweeping it under the carpet……
Oh, I see, it’s the old
“I did not have commercial relations with that man” defence now is it?
http://www.thedaily.com.au/news/2008/feb/28/victim-says-coast-mp-must-be-dumped/