What are Queenslanders thinking?

I think your projecting yourself again... you cannot deny that Beattie crippled QLD and left Bligh to sell assets to try and keep QLD going, but you can ignore it and puppet the ALP misinformation instead seemingly.

Based on what, they weren't even in power for 3 years before the media and unions scared the voters with nonsense, and he ran for the hills because he went from being much loved Brisbane Mayor to vilified by the union state premier. Given the mess he walked into office with, so many years of Beattie and Bligh mismanagement, it was always going to be hard work to do the right thing. The hatred the unions and media drum up from the mindless left borders on violence so he decided he didn't want to put up with it anymore and called an early election so he could bail. Character assassination is the bread and butter of unions.

Now we have this annastacia poledancer lady who is the daughter of an ALP politician and while knowing nothing about the real world, has seen enough of the ALP in QLD to know all they have to do is keep quite, don't give the media any reason to run a story, and the QLDers will just ignore them entirely. In contrast whenever the LNP get in power the Unions and media ensure politics is always sensationally headlining the media which annoys QLDers and plays into their dislike of politics.

Hence the vote for 4 year terms, QLD'ers don't want to bother about politics, so its really whoever the media supports that wins public support, and of course the media is biased toward the left, but of course cannot completely ignore the mess when things get really bad - the problem for QLD is that we end up with the situation with Beattie and Bligh, where they remain in power for far too long, make a huge mess, and its only till the mess cannot be ignored anymore by the biased media that QLDers actually get to find out. It was stupid for the LNP to agree to the 4 year term, they are clueless with this current mob... they've just done themselves out of getting into government - though Annastayza poledancer and her girl scouts do look really incompetent, which will worry many fence sitting QLDers.

 

Here we have the contradictions of the typical do-gooder.

Its quite acceptable in the do-gooders psychosis to accuse everyone else of not presenting facts and evidence to support their claims and theories, but they themselves do exactly the very same thing they accuse other of doing. LOL

This do-gooder wants me to prove my statement, but has accused me of:

1) living in a fantasy world
2) delusional
3) I am medicated
4) using my opinion


I ask. Where did this do-gooder get all the above information from, to factually prove the above statements?

Assumption created in his/her own mind, or facts and evidence from medical reports?

Strike ONE for the do-gooder.

I am going to ask the do-gooder the very same thing they asked me; "prove your statement of fact"?

Lets see what happens...

 

Only an idiot would not be disturbed with reading No: 4 of the link provided. Considering they are today's voters, and supports my theory that the majority of Australians are clueless about the Australian constitution, and how to use it.

http://www.survivelaw.com/index.php...rprising-facts-about-australia-s-constitution

 

We were the arse end in non geographical terms. QLD was considered backwards by southerners in every sense of the word and they were right unfortunately. Plenty of potential but no investment. That was the legacy of the Nationals especially under old Joh. In the shadows of no debt there was no vision.

 

Think every other state has 4 year terms, no big deal.

Our constitution isn't exactly useful information for most people and hardly anyone "uses" the constitution outside the High Court of Australia.

 

How many schools teach students about the Australian Constitution? The Constitution was established to help & protect the Citizens. so why should it be only the domain of the High Court to use?

 

They have upper houses, QLD does not. Qld has just given permission for their state government to get a free ride for 4 years, which means they'll sit on their butts for the first 3 to avoid making things worse, then try to look proactive in the last 12 months to get momentum for the election. Nothing better then not having to listen to politics, so its perfect in that regard BUT terrible for the state's progress and governance of government. There is no incentive for QLD state gov's to be active and drive progress.

 

At least they'll have 12 months. Most governments achieve sweet FA in 4 years with a hostile upper house. They only get things done when they control both houses, and then it's effectively no different to Qld.

 

Not necessarily. Bills passed were coming out Gillards ears and she led both a hostile upper and lower house in a minority government, plus being scrutinised heavily by the media. As long as governments aren't as draconian and crooked as Newman and Joh, Queenslanders should be right, but you certainly wouldn't just hope that's the way the cards will fall. You need another level of scrutiny to stop idiots like Newman tearing away the concessions of our retirees to build himself and his cronies lavish new office suites in downtown Brissy that costs 10's of millions. Contractors were probably all his pals.

 

Gillard didn't have a hostile lower or upper house, the Greens and independents were very willing to negotiate with her and they were effectively a loose coalition.

Upper house hasn't stopped corruption in NSW, so I don't see any reason why it would in Qld.

 

Thank you for that biased one sided view, I really don't know why you bother, its always thee same old LNP propaganda rehashed over and over and over again.

 

QLD has suffered from substantial corruption in comparison to other states and territories. Another year of a single chambered government would well and truly blow that out. Politicians just can't help themselves.

Of course Gillard had a hostile cross bench in the senate. She didn't get everything her own way but was obviously willing to work with cross benches, which allowed a significant amount of bills to pass. What the senate did, like you would expect the senate to do is force certain amendments that reflected a cross representation of views. A qld government certainly does not have to do this, which means the likelyhood of bad policy getting through unchecked without cross representation. That's my view obviously.

 

LOL, welcome. Go read what that post of mine was replying too if you don't know how to work out context. Thanks for playing

 

More corruption than other states is debatable. Qld brought a lot of their corruption out into the open at a time when it was endemic across all states.

Not having complete control of the Senate is not the same thing as having a hostile senate. The ALP and the Greens signed a formal agreement to work together on a large range of issues including forming several multi party committees, like the one that developed the Carbon Tax. It's contradictory to say that a hostile senate negotiated well with the government and they passed lots of legislation. Hostile senates by definition, are hostile to negotiation and block government legislation. Generally it's the Opposition. There was not much difference between the ALP/Greens alliance and the LNP. A lot of closed door negotiations.

Newman won in an overwhelming landslide. If you had a senate, he almost certainly would have controlled it anyway.

 

The Constitution established the federation, and powers and responsibilities of the federal and state governments, and the crown.

I learnt about it fairly superficially in high school, in VCE legal studies and in Australian politics. I've done some further reading about various parts of it, only because I find that sort of thing interesting.

The High Court has Constitutional jurisdiction.

Even if schools were going to teach more law, I wouldn't think Constitutional interpretation would be top of the list of priorities.

I assume everyone knows there's no Bill of Rights in our Constitution. That's why the Americans like to bang on about their Constitution all the time even if they only know about a couple of amendments.

 

I concede on a few of these issues but still concerned about the prospect of 4 years of open waters. The potential of having a 2nd line of defence is important.

 

Australia does not have a Bill of Rights, unless you are referring to Common Law.

 

The point I was trying to make, is that our Constitution is a fairly banal document that doesn't have much relevance to an individual.

To me it's a bit like saying, everyone should learn the building code, or something like that.

 

Please tell me your joking about the Constitution being a banal document to the Australian people?

Its one of the most important under read documents in Australia. The lack of knowledge about the Australian Constitution also explains why so many Australia's are so stupid when it came to knowledge about their own political system.

http://www.ourconstitution.org/your_will.php?pid=1

 

Nope, not kidding, I've read it.

Mainly reading and studying it makes me want a new constituion, that is actually more relective of our political system.

I suppose I have studied it more than most people ever will, other than lawyers and politicians (I would hope).

Your link mostly just laments the disconnect between the Constitution and convention, which is rather the point.

 

What is your interpretation of the Constitution, and the way politicians have hijacked the Constitution to enact their own agendas that is not in the best interests of the people?

Can you advise me under the current Constitution, how it was legally possible for politicians to tax the population a sovereign country without a referendum?