There is no need for baseless accusations which show you have no point. The biggest, by far, overseas investor here is the USA, and it is at problematic levels.
I'm not making "accusations". Now you're sounding paranoid. I said you sounded xenophobic. That doesn't mean I think you are. Duh!
Investment from overseas is at "problematic" levels? Yes you sound very xenophobic (but I'm not saying you are). There's a difference in saying "you sound like" and saying "you are".
I was also wondering why you willingly defended the right-wing Bjelke-Petersen Government when you initially said you would vote 1 for the centre-left/left-wing Greens.
Speaking of bias, you definitely show bias towards the National Party. In what way was BJP's Government better than Bligh's? Was it because at BJP's time rural state seats had a lot less voters in them than seats in the city (hence making it easy for the Nationals to retain power)?
I would have thought the greens might have thought twice about doing a deal with Labor, but i guess the greens would rather get a Senate candidate up than stand behind the thousands of quenslanders who have been duped in the Local Government reform process, and will be duped again on march 15 2008 when , through changes to the act, the people are forced to ratify the undemocratic process by voting for it.
I'll vote 1 for my local greens candidate, my preference??
I think you'll probably find the Greens *have* thought twice about the Labor preferences. This is why Tasmania was left out the of the senate preference deal (because of pulp mill) and many house of represenative candidates are not preferencing Labor high in their list. If you have a good look at the preferences I'm sure you'll find that the Greens are not the Labor Preference Machine that they are made out to be.
Anyway - glad you are still voting Green :) Good on you.
Do you really think the Liberal Party would have prevented reforms to reduce the number of local politicians? The Kennett Liberal Government forced council amalgamations on Victorians.
Also, former LIBERAL Leader Bob Quinn was on Queensland's Local Government Reform Commission.
The flaw is in the process itself. Many thousands of Queenslanders have spent time researching and writing submissions to the Local government reform committee and now find out that the majority were never read by them, and the few that were read were done so by Parliamentary staff who provided a briefing to the Committee. We now also know that the reccommendations were unnecessary because the report was well under way before the end of submission time.
The Kennett Liberal Government in Victoria didn't do much consultation, if any, when they reduced the number of local politicians in that state. Yet you are willing to bag the Queensland Labor Government. Hmmm..
Your Bias toward Labor aside, you still don't understand, this isn't about which party, it's about the undemocratic way this was done. End of story. and BTW it's also obvious why I didn't mention the Vic issue, I live in QLD.
Bias toward Labor? I only mentioned the Victorian Liberal Party and Bob Quinn because some opponents of reducing the number of local politicians think this is purely a Labor policy.
As for the reform being "undemocratic" I think your last statement isn't the "end of story". The existence Queensland's local councils are a result of State Government legislation NOT the state constitution. So the ELECTED State Government of the day can make reforms to local council without a referendum.
Council reforms and boundary realignments are two different things, and in the past the Qld Government has used the referendum to guage public views and where the majority were against changes they have not gone ahead, that is the democratic way. It is easy and weak to say they did it so accept it, even though the outcome was predetermined and undemocratic.
As I have said before, local councils only exist because of state government legislation NOT the state or federal constitutions. A referendum is only required to amend the constitution.
The DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED GOVERNMENT of the day can amend legislation. This means recent reforms to reduce the number of local politicians are a product of democracy.
Repeating yourself does not reinforce your arguement, because there has been previous referenda on the issue of Boundary realignment which was acted on. Denying the people the right to have a say is FASCIST, NOT DEMOCRATIC.
I'm repeating myself because you don't seem to realise that the reforms that reduce the number of local politicians is a product of democracy. There's no CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGE. The only thing that's changed is legislation. Legislation can be amended by the DEMOCRATICALLY elected government of the day. Also, local councils still have to be elected. So what's this rubbish about the current state government being fascist? Fascism more accurately describes the Joh Bjelke-Petersen era.
Actually you're repeating yourself because you refuse to accept fact other than the Qld Govt propaganda you've been speeling and have no logical arguement.
Reduction of representation is not democracy at work.
And FYI as a survivor of the BjP days this is worse, BjP may have looked after his mates in Qld but this lot are giving us away bit by bit to overseas investors.
Future local politicians still have to be DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED. If future politicians were hand-picked then I would be opposed to changes to local politics. However that's not the case.
As for the Bjelke-Petersen Government, they were worse. Not only did Bjelke-Petersen "look after" his cronies but he allowed the police to have excessive powers.
As for overseas investors, why are you bagging them? They're much better than BjP's cronies. You sound xenophobic. Then again that's no surprise you just willingly defended the extremely conservative Bjelke-Petersen Government.
In 2007 Larissa Waters should have won a senate seat. the reason she did not is due to a flaw in the way we count the vote.
If you recount the QLD senate ballot excluding all candidates except the last 7 standing Larisa Waters is elected.
Greens "Guru" Luntz is not up to it. He and Brown are engaged ion a conspiracy of silence denying Australians a fair and accurate voting system
WHY?
We need to adopt Meek or the Wright re-iterative counting system
Submission 51 JSCEM CHANGE THAT COUNTS
Melbcity 2 years ago
Great advert.Lets hope it gets shown during some prominent timeslots.
danielsydney 2 years ago
That is most offensive, you are nothing but a troll.
Ratter2E 4 years ago
I didn't say you were xenophobic. I just said you sounded xenophobic.
DrIdaho 4 years ago
You are a Troll.
There is no need for baseless accusations which show you have no point. The biggest, by far, overseas investor here is the USA, and it is at problematic levels.
Ratter2E 4 years ago
I'm not making "accusations". Now you're sounding paranoid. I said you sounded xenophobic. That doesn't mean I think you are. Duh!
Investment from overseas is at "problematic" levels? Yes you sound very xenophobic (but I'm not saying you are). There's a difference in saying "you sound like" and saying "you are".
DrIdaho 4 years ago
I was also wondering why you willingly defended the right-wing Bjelke-Petersen Government when you initially said you would vote 1 for the centre-left/left-wing Greens.
DrIdaho 4 years ago
Once again your bias clouds reason.
I said this Bligh government is worse than that of BJP , that doesn't mean BJP was good, just better than Bligh's.
Ratter2E 4 years ago
Speaking of bias, you definitely show bias towards the National Party. In what way was BJP's Government better than Bligh's? Was it because at BJP's time rural state seats had a lot less voters in them than seats in the city (hence making it easy for the Nationals to retain power)?
DrIdaho 4 years ago
I would have thought the greens might have thought twice about doing a deal with Labor, but i guess the greens would rather get a Senate candidate up than stand behind the thousands of quenslanders who have been duped in the Local Government reform process, and will be duped again on march 15 2008 when , through changes to the act, the people are forced to ratify the undemocratic process by voting for it.
I'll vote 1 for my local greens candidate, my preference??
Ratter2E 4 years ago
Hi Ratter2E
I think you'll probably find the Greens *have* thought twice about the Labor preferences. This is why Tasmania was left out the of the senate preference deal (because of pulp mill) and many house of represenative candidates are not preferencing Labor high in their list. If you have a good look at the preferences I'm sure you'll find that the Greens are not the Labor Preference Machine that they are made out to be.
Anyway - glad you are still voting Green :) Good on you.
spidieman 4 years ago 2
Thanks Spidie,
Yes we have a great greens candidate in our area, who makes all the others look very second rate, so there's no question.
Ratter2E 4 years ago
Duped by Labor's Local Government reform process?
Do you really think the Liberal Party would have prevented reforms to reduce the number of local politicians? The Kennett Liberal Government forced council amalgamations on Victorians.
Also, former LIBERAL Leader Bob Quinn was on Queensland's Local Government Reform Commission.
DrIdaho 4 years ago
The flaw is in the process itself. Many thousands of Queenslanders have spent time researching and writing submissions to the Local government reform committee and now find out that the majority were never read by them, and the few that were read were done so by Parliamentary staff who provided a briefing to the Committee. We now also know that the reccommendations were unnecessary because the report was well under way before the end of submission time.
That is NOT community consultation!
Ratter2E 4 years ago
The Kennett Liberal Government in Victoria didn't do much consultation, if any, when they reduced the number of local politicians in that state. Yet you are willing to bag the Queensland Labor Government. Hmmm..
DrIdaho 4 years ago
Your Bias toward Labor aside, you still don't understand, this isn't about which party, it's about the undemocratic way this was done. End of story. and BTW it's also obvious why I didn't mention the Vic issue, I live in QLD.
Ratter2E 4 years ago
Bias toward Labor? I only mentioned the Victorian Liberal Party and Bob Quinn because some opponents of reducing the number of local politicians think this is purely a Labor policy.
As for the reform being "undemocratic" I think your last statement isn't the "end of story". The existence Queensland's local councils are a result of State Government legislation NOT the state constitution. So the ELECTED State Government of the day can make reforms to local council without a referendum.
DrIdaho 4 years ago
Council reforms and boundary realignments are two different things, and in the past the Qld Government has used the referendum to guage public views and where the majority were against changes they have not gone ahead, that is the democratic way. It is easy and weak to say they did it so accept it, even though the outcome was predetermined and undemocratic.
Ratter2E 4 years ago
As I have said before, local councils only exist because of state government legislation NOT the state or federal constitutions. A referendum is only required to amend the constitution.
The DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED GOVERNMENT of the day can amend legislation. This means recent reforms to reduce the number of local politicians are a product of democracy.
DrIdaho 4 years ago
Repeating yourself does not reinforce your arguement, because there has been previous referenda on the issue of Boundary realignment which was acted on. Denying the people the right to have a say is FASCIST, NOT DEMOCRATIC.
Ratter2E 4 years ago
I'm repeating myself because you don't seem to realise that the reforms that reduce the number of local politicians is a product of democracy. There's no CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGE. The only thing that's changed is legislation. Legislation can be amended by the DEMOCRATICALLY elected government of the day. Also, local councils still have to be elected. So what's this rubbish about the current state government being fascist? Fascism more accurately describes the Joh Bjelke-Petersen era.
DrIdaho 4 years ago
Actually you're repeating yourself because you refuse to accept fact other than the Qld Govt propaganda you've been speeling and have no logical arguement.
Reduction of representation is not democracy at work.
And FYI as a survivor of the BjP days this is worse, BjP may have looked after his mates in Qld but this lot are giving us away bit by bit to overseas investors.
Ratter2E 4 years ago
Hahahahaha!
Future local politicians still have to be DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED. If future politicians were hand-picked then I would be opposed to changes to local politics. However that's not the case.
DrIdaho 4 years ago
As for the Bjelke-Petersen Government, they were worse. Not only did Bjelke-Petersen "look after" his cronies but he allowed the police to have excessive powers.
As for overseas investors, why are you bagging them? They're much better than BjP's cronies. You sound xenophobic. Then again that's no surprise you just willingly defended the extremely conservative Bjelke-Petersen Government.
DrIdaho 4 years ago
Simple explanation of why a vote for the Greens is NOT a wasted vote. In fact you get better value for money!
dankru 4 years ago 3
Incredibly cheesey, I love it!
ronaldraygoon 4 years ago 4