There is one major difference between JWH and Peter Beattie. Overt the past few weeks Howard's behaviour has become increasingly irrational. First he accuses Bracks and Beattie of plotting against him with the connivance of Kevin Rudd, then he begins to behave in an
increasingly megalomaniacally fashion, trying to take over every arm of Government, local and state. The man is becoming increasingly dangerous because he's obviously losing his marbles.

Good article James. I pretty much agree with all that you have written.

So, are there any current or recent state or federal governments that you can support, or are they are they all similarly flawed, just to differing extents? Have any of these governments achieved good things without a heavy-handed approach? Or in the absence of heavy-handedness can they be deemed to be weak-willed and thus just as culpable regarding issues such as maximised mining exports, manic human expansion and various others that you and I agree are gravely bad aspects of our political philosophy?

Can any government significantly move in the direction that it thinks it should without undertaking strong moves that are against the wishes of the majority?

Would you complain about a similar style of governance if Beatty, Howard or whoever were to strongly move away from maximised coal exports, the facilitation of rampant population growth, privatisation, etc, and towards genuine sustainability?

Don't you think very strong quite dictatorial governance would be necessary in order to direct our society towards sustainability within the timeframe necessary to avoid economic and social disaster?

Is it the political direction that is really the problem rather than the methodology?

Times are changing and the day of the small council run by a few local interests (usually vested interests) are over.

Even after Peter Beattie's amalgamations there will be small councils where there is one councillor to 500 people. However to take the case of Brisbane, a major metropolitan city with all of the complexities that go with that, there is one councillor to 20,000 people.

On the face of it, who can see any reason why some citizens should have to support (or demand) a ratio of 1:500 councillor to rate payers when others do well enough with a ratio of 1:20,000? Do sheep vote to make up the numbers?

Yes, Peter Beattie is trying his hardest to get change, but the real story is attempted government by media outlets.

Media outlets are into sensationalism in total disregard of their role to inform and be independent. The role of some of the media outlets in this is just as counterproductive (and reprehensible) as during the debate about Toowoomba's water, where shock jocks, certain papers and commercial TV kept referring to the recycling of sewage, not water. Ethics come a distant last where profits are concerned.

The shock jocks and nay-sayers have their day and later the ill-informed taxpayers pay for lost opportunities.

You little ripper James! You have just hit a six for Australia, off the bowling of John Howard, bowling with the new ball from the southern end of the Gabber.

You are providing proof of intent on the part of the Federal government to hold a referendum concurrently with the upcoming Federal elections no matter what. No matter that at this time it appears that such a referendum may be held for only certain Queensland local government areas, the intention is clear: hold a referendum, a referendum on anything, at any cost!

Don't you know it, you are confirming, through the exposure of this opportunistic and gratuitous foray into what is a State matter, everything said in relation to the "Method in the Proposed Referendum Madness" set out in several posts in the "Vote against four year Federal Parliamentary terms" thread at: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=881 in the General Discussion area of the forum.

Its all just 'good cop, bad cop' stuff.

The "Dictatorial Conduct" of Peter Beattie is nothing more nor less than being provocative such that those who want a referendum, any referendum, with the next elections can convince government backbenchers that they are on a winner with John Howard's proposal. The electors of Australia decisively rejected the idea of elevating local government by according it formal recognition in its own right under the Constitution in a referendum held in 1988, rejected it in every State with the record lowest "Yes" vote in the history of Federation. Now we all see Peter Beattie be first deliberately dictatorial to help put this issue on the agenda again, then pull his head in promptly to make John Howard appear as if he is on a winner with his half-baked Federally resourced "referendum" proposal. Bad cop, Good cop!

Why do unidentified interests want a referendum, any referendum, with the Federal elections? Could it be to effectively negate the much touted recent changes to the Electoral Act, changes that were intended to reduce the scope for fraudulent or manipulative activities to influence electoral outcomes?

Local government is for the most part inept, riddled with corruption, and run by self important conservative wanna be politicians.

Beattie is as right as Kennett was - local government is in the constitution, it is established by acts of State Parliaments who have always overseen the operations of local councils.

Do people care ? Even in a push poll people gave mixed responses to the questions, and online polls are for the click happy hacks with nothing better to do.

I believe the first poll so far (and the likely reason Beattie has stopped opposing) showed the real picture - 75% of people didn't vote.

James, This is a ridiculous situation. Howard intervenes in a local government issue for one reason only. Not to defend democracy as he has both failed to do that previously (Kennett for one case) and he has done exactly what Beattie has done. Many times. One example is the terrorism law that punishes anyone who tells anyone that they were or are being interrogated as a suspected terrorist. And family are equally liable to such punishment. Yet Haneef is run by Howard through the media. I see no difference between that law and Beattie's. Both insane.

He keeps legislation secret from the public and the Opposition until the day he wants it pushed through. Squashing any debate on these issues. You name it Howard has done it or is about to as he grows increasingly more desperate.

If you think about it you have to ask is Beattie acting undemocratically on the council issue. He held a 2 year period aside for councils to act on their initiative. Of the 150+ councils only 4 acted. So he did. But he did have a supposedly independent group make decisions on the issues. Agrument about independence but still it was considered by a separate group to government.

So once Howard intervenes Beattie reacts badly and creates foul laws. He hasn't acted on them, and won't now. That legislation will disappear in March as it has a sunset clause.

Howard of course had and has no interest at all in what the people in these councils think or say. the amalgamations are already law. In fact the actions by Beattie except those draconian punishments were normal. To suggest there be a referendum on a matter decided by a democratically elected State government to me is undemocratic.

Ludwig asks what government we can support. To me, none of the current ones and none being proposed by any Oppositions of Labor or Coalition branding.

Until we can change MP's loyalty from Party to electoratethat so thet MP's answer directly to their electorates we do not have democracy at all. We have oligarchy.