Yes Graham. Even as the analysis is mostly correct it misses a very important fundamental not missed by minor parties like one nation?

That you cannot prevaricate or have two bob each way, but stand up and stand for something!

Then have the wit and the balls, to back it with courage of conviction and a modicum of future vision.

Nick is probably a good bloke, but patently, a fish out of water at the helm of any political party?

What Queensland needs and indeed Australia state or territory is long over due affordable energy and all that flows from that. And politicians with the courage to dump the fossil fuel lobby and just get nuclear on the table.

Then let it stand or fall on merit alone!

Energy for as little as a predicted $0.1.98 PKH the estimated median (Professor Hargreaves) from molten salt thorium energy?

And energy prices that low would not just turbocharge the economy, but even more so, for the first pioneering economies like Indonesia, South Africa and Brazil.

Just mention a few of those now doing serious R+D into the clean green energy promise of thorium?

And the very, very affordable irrigation water, drought proofing and the jobs, jobs, jobs, it alone could provide.

Instead, what we are invariably offered, is some visionless politician with nothing in the locker but a slippery, tax avoiding profit repatriating, foreign national and a foreign owned coal mine!

And just how bad the other lot are and just dumb enough to think that preferencing this or that minor has some genuine political capital.

This is broken record electioneering and needs changing both at the pointy end and the policy roll-out!

And if the leader and the party are not up for it then prepare for a very long stint in the political wilderness! Or baking pumpkin scones!
Alan B.

The LNP lost it well before the election by not doing the hard yards as grassroots politicians.

Rather than looking elsewhere, particularly past history, to shed blame, each candidate should be looking very closely at what s/he regards as the 'distasteful and difficult' aspects of being a representative. Having identified those, to resolve to take them on as areas to concentrate on and constantly improve.

While all candidates pay lip service to getting to know people in their electorate and what the public truly value and want, very few politicians are willing to do that. It is much easier to 'hang' with mates and read papers, than be present, earnestly interested in and noting the public's views. -Especially actually hearing and noting the opinions of young people and giving feedback later.

Asked for their self-assessment, all politicians would rate their personal initiative highly, their fairness too, but they might get a wake-up call if they put the questions to voters. Too many are 'team' players(sic), where team means goofing off while the leader and the dependable few are beavering away. All engage in time-wasting and exhaustive busywork, but few prioritise in favour of getting to really know the public in the electorate. Don't make it a photo opportunity, be humble and be known, face to face contact and word of mouth matter even more in the tech age.

Nothing could make me vote for a party that could have a Malcolm Turnbull as it's national leader.

There are a lot of people out this way who feel exactly the same. If they can stomach an incompetent snake like Turnbull leading their national party, there is no way many of us would vote for one of them for the primary school P&C committee, let alone a parliament. I think you need to re do some of your analysis this time Graham.

I paid no attention to the campaign, as I knew who I would not vote for, leaving just one candidate in my electorate.

God we need first past the post elections so our votes don't end up with a party we despise, whether we like it or not. I wonder how many ended up with their vote electing someone they particularly did not want.

Here's one of those rare occasions, where I almost agree with Hasbeen, always providing the elected representative, gets north of 50%!

Or failing that, the two leading candidates go to a runoff, preceded by several town hall style debates! To let the contest of well articulated ideas and the most persuasive evocation alone, hold sway!

And consequently, a genuine reflective majority, at the ballot box.

I'd also like a little cross referencing to ensure that the number of returned ballots matches the number of living registered voters in any one seat!

I mean its easy to win by a startling massive majority, when dead folk vote via a postal ballot and or by proxy, care of still living rallies?

Now again this year, I received two postal vote forms, with the compliments of the sitting member/party? Even though I can still get out to vote early in one of those special voting booths!

And given that experience and the fact these things should only come into play if you are outside your electorate or overseas and can't get to a polling booth or embassy/consul?

I think we need automatic cross referencing of the census and electoral roll, to ensure the count is both fair and credible! And allow the computer to accurately compute!
Alan B.

Graham,
I understand why you'd use 1998 as your comparison year being the year when One Nation arrived on the QLD scene,but so much has changed since then that the comparisons are fraught. For example, while its true that the Greens substantially improved their vote in those two decades, it needs to be remembered that, in1998, the Democrats were still a force. Overall the non-Labor left vote did still increase in the period but not by all that much, particularly given that the Greens were the only party directly opposed to Adani and thus the only choice for those who see that as the decisive issue. (Incidentally, while Adani was a major talking point it should be noted that over 90% of people voted for parties not directly opposed to the mine).

The situation for the LNP and the Libs nationally is diabolical. Throughout thecountry the 'wets' have commandeered the Libs and offer a Labor-lite agenda. Clearly there is a constituency that won't vote Labor but recoils at the hard Right agenda. But equally there is a (growing?) number who fret for the future and want to see a return to Howard style policies. (That's Howard 1996-2000, not Howard 2007). Hence the adoration of Abbott among those groups.

The Pyne formula is to ignore that group in the belief that, given preferential voting, they can place their protest vote wherever they like, so long as they place Lib above Lab. But I'm not sure that works any more.

One Nation is a movement seeking a leader. Pauline just won't cut it. She's done amazingly well to get to the ~12% which seems to be the ceiling for protest parties. But she doesn't have the wherewithal to articulate a reformist agenda or to organise a tight well run party

/cont

Just as the US Tea Party had to wait for a decade for their Trump (after working through quite a number of false prophets) Australia's right awaits such a leader. It could still be Abbott (Cory) is just too decent to be that person. But when/if he/she arrives then the inherent contradictions in the Libs broad church will rip it apart.

I feel the upcoming demolition of the Libs at the next Federal election may well be the harbinger of tat upheaval.