"Have even traveled interstate to be a booth worker." Yes Banjo I know the problem you members of The Christian Democratic Party (Fred Nile Group) have. Always having to bus in 'Happy Clappers' to do your HTV's I met some of your folk last time around at the NSW election. Not a bad bunch of kiddies. Done a pre-poll booth during the week before the election, there was this crazy right winger running for the LC, kept wanting to shove some rubbish from Archbishop Peel in our faces, even his own co worker said he was an x army, religious nutter. The funny thing is the Liberal bloke said "gee the Labor Party has a crazy one there." I had to agree. Takes all kinds. Done a booth once and this old chook with blue rinse in her hair turned up, there to do a couples of hours for the Liberal Party she was from Sydney's eastern suburbs, kept telling the voters they lived in a very grubby suburb and the crime rate must be high. She confided in me she was leaving at 4 o'clock as she didn't think she would be safe walking to the bus stop. Could have got bopped by one of those voters she told "you live in 'Grubsville'."

My son asked me an interesting question this evening.

And its this:

"Would the Liberal Party in their own right have won
the Queensland election if they hadn't amalgamated
with the National Party?"

He explained that he was
watching the Queensland election coverage and
Labor in most electorates were only a few percentages
below the Liberal-National Party. For example - in one
electorate -
LNP got 53 percent, Labor got 45 percent and others
got the rest.

So if the Liberal and Nationals were
not amalgamated Labor would have won in that electorate.
Interesting point my son was making. Of course the
Nationals are the strongest in Queensland - unlike
other states - and that explains why the Liberals saw
it to their advantage to amalgamate in Queensland.

Anyway, I tried to explain to my son -
that in the past there were
three major parties contesting the elections in
Queensland. Labor, National, Liberal.

Of the three parties the Liberals were the weakest.
For the past twenty odd years Labor has won the elections.
By joining together the two weaker parties it was
natural that they would collect more votes than Labor.
That is why it was a total wipe-out for Labor.

Perhaps Labor should consider amalgamating with the
Greens in Queensland - and then the contest would be
more evenly balanced.

I'm not suggesting that Labor would have necessarily won
in Queensland - but if it wasn't for the amalgamation of
the LNP - Labor would not have lost by such a large
margin. Who knows they may even have won by a small
margin.

cont'd ...

BTW - Anna Bligh retained her seat.
So it is obvious that it was not a backlash
against her. Unlike Mr Howard's backlash -
in his electorate.

Light on the Hill stuff is very powerful, but it must be sincere. Maybe Qld Labor's rout is analogous to the voter listening to Chifley's speech, then looking up and seeing it was being uttered by Craig Thompson. Labor needs a separation of power of sorts so it can return to its grass-roots.

Lexi, you omitted to say that generally the Libs & Nats did not
stand against each other, or when they did they exchanged preferences
or the voters voted their preference.

What you said would have been true in a first past the post system.

I don't think you can itemise it to co2 tax, selling QR, petrol
subsidy etc etc, it all just gets taken up and goes into the mix that
the voter holds in mind when he votes.

You just cannot allocate percentages to each possible reason.

Tony Abbott now agrees too Bazz, the Qld election was NOT a referendum on the carbon tax.

His original assertion (and that of Shadow Minister) was just rhetorical fear mongering spin - pure and simple.

Did it work? Probably.