Those who have read "The Latham Diaries" will have found startling confirmation of the fact the State Labor Premiers are cynical enough to deliberately damage the electoral prospects of their Federal counterparts in order to better ensure their own survival at the state level. Former NSW Premier Bob Carr expressed it thus in his own diaries on 6 November 2001, quoted on pages 305-306 of "The Latham Diaries":

"Published polls and the Party's polling starting to show Federal Labor edging up. Can't believe it. ... (Michael Egan, NSW State Treasurer said,) 'We'll be the ones weeping if Labor wins.' Yes - the secret agenda: State Labor wants to run against a rotting hated Coalition Government in Canberra. A Labor Government there only makes a third (State) term harder."

Mark Latham commented: "People used to get expelled from the Labor Party for this sort of treachery. Yet when it appeared in Marilyn Dodkin's book on Carr last year, no-one batted an eye-lid. Has it become part of the system? Everyone now expects Carr Labor to selfishly look after itself, cheering for a Howard victory, ..."

And certainly Bob Carr, together with his Victorian and Tasmanian counterparts did just that, as Latham abundantly illustrated, and we have them largely to thank for Howard's victory in 2004, together with "Work Choices" and all of his other policy abominations.

Which brings us to the forced council amalgamations in Queensland. There are no sound reasons derived from Labor principles to justify Beattie's current plans to abolish so many local governments which are in tune with the needs of their constituents. Indeed, it was a former Queensland Hanlon Labor Government which gave local government the powers they have enjoyed up until recently (see http://candobetter.org/node/140).

The only possible motives that I see are:

1. To take away the powers that local communities now have to prevent the further ravaging of their regions by property developers, and

2. A cynical political stunt, in emulation of Bob Carr, to use the perpetuation of John Howard's rule to ensure the survival of his Government at the next State election.

(tobecontinued)

You blew your arguement when you said there were no sound reasons for amalgamations in Queensland, get real. I can only presume you are a councillor or work for a council to make such comments. In the Townsville area they can't wait for amalgamation the only difference to many other areas is that the incumbents have accepted the gravy train ride is over.

"To take away the powers that local communities now have to prevent the further ravaging of their regions by property developers"

From a Gold Coast perspective that is plainly a joke.

While I disagree it's about sabotaging the federal reasons, I agree it's not about the economics.

noreeblue, he's right in that the economic reasons are being manipulated. The reasoning is there for those who wish to look at the reports. Consider the PriceWaterHouseCoopers report the State has been using to justify the process. In its conclusions it states quite clearly that amalgamation will not be a panacea. If you like, I can direct you quite clearly to the paragraph. Also, a federal government report (the hawker report) completed in 2003 found that the problem local government faces is due to cost shifting from higher levels of government. I can point you to that too.

You may also wonder why so many councils which are in fine financial condition are being amalgamated. Many of them rank as 'strong' and have been found to be quite capable of handing their financial affairs well into the future.

No, I'm not a local government employee. Besides, that's a hollow argument, and I can just as easily accuse you of being a State employee noreeblue.

For my two bob, I believe the motivations are more complex.

Firstly - local government has the least power under the constitution and is largely an arm of State government - thus, when efficiency gains are required, it's much easier for higher levels of government to foist changes on lower levels, instead of getting their own house in order. The problem is, local government collects much less than even 7 per cent of taxes, yet looks after more than 30 per cent of infrastructure, meaning it's reliant on upper levels of government.

Another reason, is that the State has been making inroads into planning legislation. Planning and local government Acts are far more encompassing than they were many years ago - these amalgamations will mean more decisions have to be made by delegated authority, meaning bureaucrats trained to follow state legislation will decide, rather than local elected members.

A more likely reason has been put forward by the LGAQ.

http://www.lgaq.asn.au/portal/dt?action=content&provider=JSPTabContainer

Actually, I don't think the LGAQ's quite right either, though I dare say that was part of it.

noreeblue when you wrote, "You blew your arguement when you said there were no sound reasons for amalgamations in Queensland", you only betrayed your own ignorance about this question of local Council amalgamations. ...

(See discssion thread in respose to article "An end to big fish in small, shallow ponds" at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=884#15411 for more)

I note that Margo Kingston also seems to have also grasped what is happening. See "Peter Beattie bent on destruction of Rudd's chances" at http://webdiary.com.au/cms/?q=node/1981. I attempt to post the following, but have, so far, experienced no luck getting anything posted onto that site. (I would have to assume that it is a technical problem rather than intentional censorship).

As 'daggett' has pointed out on Online Opinion, those who have read Mark Latham's diaries will see history repeating itself. Last time it was the NSW, Victorian and Tasmanian State Governments which largely destroyed Federal Labor's chances. This time it will be Peter Beattie's Labor Government.

The astonishing hegemonic brinksmanship of Beattie and local Government minister Andrew Fraser, when he is clearly opposed by Queensland public opinion as well as by the people in the areas of the councils to be forcibly amalgamated, has to be seen to be believed. They are now threatening to instantly dismiss any local council which attempts to hold a referendum on these amalgamations.

Frankly, I believe the whole supposed 'confrontation' between Howard and Beattie is a staged performance by both of them in order to ensure that both their respective governments survive, similar to Carr's strategy that daggett described above.

I think those of us who understand what is going on need to raise our voices as loudly as possible and condemn unreservedly Peter Beattie and his whole government for what they are now doing.

This should be done for the sake of the communities who stand to have their autonomy taken away from them, but for the sake of ordinary working Australians who desperately need to have Howard removed from office

Dagget if I know what's going on I will raise my voice but I don't know what's going on.... can you explain better? lol

Interesting to follow this at this site.
I find Margo Kingston's Web Diary can be temperamental to access, also. Apparently might to be with her site being set up by Fairfax, who later likely kneecapped her for dissent. But it a better than average blog and worth an effort as to access. It's had the wit to ask similar questions to this site, after all.
The flavour is slightly different elsewhere, as some feel the "reforms" have no sinister motives or likely impact. However, if one thing has caused problems in the ALP for decades now, it is the clash between "development" on one hand and heritage, sustainabilty and environment on the other. The dichotomy as oppositional has never been resolved back into something managable, largely because the development at any costs lobby don't want that.
Since the mid-nineties in particular, when the development side won out and arguably took no prisoners, the Tasmania example remains the most spectacular example of what has followed.
But it is not the only example and neither major political formation has the slightest reason to applaud itself.
There is little discernible difference in mentality or objectives between Coalition and Labor policy on the same issues, as illustrated by the liberals and labor conspiring to throw out the regulating mechanism offered by the Greens in the late nineties in Tasmania. Open slather on old growth forests for a quick buck for the lab/lib claque that now had control of the resource was declared, lest science discover yet more reasons for conserving the environment or using it more constructively for the economy and the future.
Tasmania of course is the example, but variations are used almost universally; hence the suspicions as to Beatties' policy.
Tasmania and elsewhere have been called "development", but often have just been lazy, greedy vandalism characterised by lack of imagination and effort; a caricature used as an alibi for avoiding just that properly thought out worthwhile development that could actually add to the sum total of civilization.

Hi Angel84,

I thought I had explained things fairly well.

(But, then again, perhaps I may not be the best person to judge.)

I have tried to post some material that may also be helpful at http://candobetter.org/NoForcedAmalgamations

Other useful sites are: http://www.localdemocracy.com.au, http://www.keepnoosaspecial.com.au/

Also, check out article by Margo Kingston referred to by cacofonix above at: http://webdiary.com.au/cms/?q=node/1981

Will get back to you.

There's more here daggett:

http://www.noamalgamation.stanthorpe.net/

The email option includes an auto list, so you can email your concerns to every State and Federal MP. There's also a section there which shows how you can contact the Qld Governor General, who theoretically has the power to halt legislation, though in practice it's unlikely.

Last night was the latest parliament has ever stayed. The legislation to sack councils was passed at 4am. Quite ironic, that democracy was willing to go above and beyond - to deny people a vote.

As for the $10 million, upper limit cost - I can't help but feel somewhat sceptical that this is beattie's reasoning. It's federal funds, and far more than that is spent on things like ad campaigns...

Wouldn't it be ironic if Beattie, after all this time in office, really did something worthwhile, & actually succeeded?

Like all mean, & nasty people, Beattie has a long memory, & he was severely kicked around by Rudd, as part of the Goss mob. His chance to get his own back? And he gets to kick the councils, who resisted giving their water, paid for by their residents, to Brisbane, to partly cover up another of his failings.

I wonder if any of our school kids have enough maths, to add up all of them.

Didn't Latham label Peter Beattie an 'A-grade arsehole'? Seemed like a fairly apt description to me. In fact, it could be applied to every current state Labor premier with the possible exception of Mike Rann. They really are an incorrigible bunch of cynical opportunists and third-rate apparatchiks.

I believe that he did say that of Beattie, but I couldn't find that in his diaries.

This is what Latham wrote of Beattie in his diary:

http://candobetter.org/about#fn2
"We wanted to include Kyoto in the agreement by setting up a National carbon-trading system, but Beattie refused to co-operate, so it had to be dropped. He's super-sensitive about the coal industry, but it's crazy in terms of Queensland's long-term interests. Global warming is killing the Great Barrier Reef, the State's main economic and environmental resource, and Beattie won't support Kyoto to do something about it. He's the only person I know who wrote his autobiography, In the Arena, before getting into Parliament - he must think he's Teddy Roosevelt. Now, he's rough-riding over the Reef, watching it die because of coral bleaching." - from The Latham Diaries, 2005, p318.

Clearly Beeattie and Howard are as one on the question of fossil fuel exports. This makes it hard for me to accept that the current apparent dispute between Howard and Beattie is not being staged for the benefit of the voting public.

I just can not understand why we need to refer to that long gone idiot Mark Latham.
It is quite true that driven into the roll with the help of another total loss he showed himself to be a waste of the air he breathed.
That other air thief was Simon Creon.
If both took a high anti ALP profile[ it is my view they only have to speak on any subject to do so]
John Howard still faces reality on election night.
His lies his deliberate dividing this country, a host of shameful issues like Mark Vailes failure to remember on about 40 times during the AWB inquiry.
Howard's failures massively out weight others election night will prove my point and place Australia in safe hands at last.

Belly,

When people are willing to dismiss Mark Latham as "that long gone idiot", but invariably fail to discuss what he actually wrote and said, including in "The Latham Diaries", I become suspicious.

In fact, Latham has not been universally condemned. Former Labor Minister and University lecturer Doctor Neil Blewett described the Latham Diaries as the best account by a political leader he has read.

No one has attempted to refute Latham's accounts of how three Labor state premiers, that is Paul Lennon of Tasmania, Steve Bracks of Victoria and Bob Carr of New south Wales, acted in ways that appeared to be designed to destroy Federal Labor's chances in 2004.

Peter Beattie appears bent today on doing what they did back then, so I think it is all very relevant.

Whilst Mark Latham appears to have had some personal flaws, as have many great political leaders, I think it also true that his motivations were the best. I think he was one of the rare leaders of either major party who was not going to allow himself to be bent to suit the interests of Australia's wealthy elite, and that is why he was treated so harshly and that is why he was undermined even from within the Federal Labor Party.

It seems that many Labor power-brokers judged that three more years of Howard was preferable to having Latham as Prime Minister. From their own selfish perspective they almost certainly judged correctly, because his intention was to use his influence to clean up the corrupt empires within the Labor Party once he achieved office of Prime Minister.

For my own part, I was critical of Latham for his infatuation with neo-liberal 'free market' economics. I even had two letters printed in newspapers which were critical of him.

However, I think, in all likelihood, his 'free market' ideology would have been scrapped by Latham as he would have came to grips with managing the Australian economy.

Achtung Minen! (Humour Warning to those it may concern.)

Gold! Gold! Gold!

So many targets, so little time to shoot them in! What have you done, daggett, kissed the Blarney Stone? Getting these topics up in the General Discussion area of the Forum is positively brilliant. There is just so much that requires development that multiple posts are all but essential, as you yourself are finding. At least that is more possible in this area. Top tactics! You seem to have cast a spell, in a manner of speaking, over the discussion in this thread. Study of the 14th post will reveal where you cast it.

I bequeath unto you the "Bee-Attie-Tudes".

Blessed are they who strive to attain to the imitation of Sir Joh, for they shall be loved and applauded by the general public. (For Sir Joh was a truly great man, and iniquity was far from him, though liberally round about.)

Blessed are they who obey the Routine Orders of Prince Rupert of the Whine, for they shall be spoken well of by the mainstream media.

Blessed are they who take the water of life from regional cities, and cause it to run to the Great City, and the developers thereof, for they shall profit greatly thereby.

Blessed are they who promise referenda on the water of life, and then withhold, for truly they show and magnify the power of the Fat Controllers and the first among the Elect over the people.

Blessed are they who shall sack and amalgamate the cities and towns who run to referenda to save their lives; hypocrisy shall be far from them.

Blessed are they who make common cause with the Fat Controllers and gaol their political opponents. For the Fat Controllers have in their charge the Book of Names, wherein are written all, and perhaps more than all, the Names that have a right to be recorded as praising those who are of the Elect. And Verily, those who have best made such common cause shall be of the pre-eminent rank in the Kingdom of Oz.

Amen, Forrest Gump.

cacofonix says "I attempt[ed] to post the following, but have, so far, experienced no luck getting anything posted onto [Margo Kingston's] site. (I would have to assume that it is a technical problem rather than intentional censorship.)". cacofonix then cites daggett on OLO as the author of views to which he/she was attempting to make reference in the content of the attempted post to Margo's page on what is perhaps someone else's site.

Don't be so sure its not intentional censorship, cacofonix. It may, however, be a self-imposed censorship by those having hegemony over Margo's site, claimed (perhaps conveniently) as arising from legalities surrounding copyright. Such may be the implications of the Full Legal Notices of OLO that it is OLO that owns what daggett said, not daggett, and the controller (a fat one?) of Margo's site may, by common consent, be backing up OLO's claimed proprietary interest in the words that have so far flowed from daggett's digital pen onto OLO's digital page. This link may assist: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=874#15260

The above may provide background to the following little allegory. (Humour Warning! With apologies to Comedy Inc, on what is, for the moment, OUR abc.)

The Big Engine That Could - A Tale of the Days of Steam

"Gordy sat quietly fuming in the big engine roundhouse at Wally Heights. Every so often a big cloud of steam would come out of the little ear-like vents on the sides of his cylinder heads, indicating the extent of the seething inner rage that coursed up and down the water tubes of his boiler, but apart from that, things were pretty quiet. Gordy wasn't saying much, at least not for now. A pool of leaked oil lay on the floor beside the rails just below his leading wheels on the right-hand side, just near where, if he were a person, his right foot would be. But he wasn't. He was a locomotive. But, hey, he had feelings too!

TBC

Belly Said.
Mark vailes 40 times cant remember at the AWB Enquiry.
Good I am glad you noticed that.
Which is why we sent all that information and MORE the your hero- The Milky Bar Kid Kevin Rudd.

He was the Shadow Mininster for Trade- and Vaile was the Mininster for trade. So you agree you dont trust Vaile but at least hes smart. I still can not believe the shadow Mininster for trade wasnt all over the info we sent him.
A far more clever poly would have made a mile with that info over Vaile and the Howard Government.
We sent them the answer to their political prayers for the AWB Enquiry and Rudd was too stupid to use it.
Now if it had been Beattie I have NO doubt he would have.
Apart from that He had a duty of care to the public to share the information. It was what he was paid to do.

I live in QLD and that would be the same Kevin who voted years ago against establishing more dams and water projects.
I tend to agree with the poster who said - I get a bit sus when people bag Latham but also refuse to discuss what was in his notes.
If Beattie were running as oposition leader Australia would be in much better hands.
Its even possible Beattie is concerned about the Australian People if the polls are for Rudd.
The bottom line is Beattie will do whats best for QLD and I personally belive ALL Australian People.
Hes an Ok guy.

Council Amalgamations is the best thing Peter Beattie has come up with since he came into power in Queensland. Hopefully we will have Mayors & councillors who take their position seriously, and work for the people full time, not dilly dallying & doing favours for the mates.

Ma eda,

Do you know what the word 'democracy' means?

Just who do you believe that Peter Beattie is representing when he is forcing local communities to accept rule over so many important aspects of their lives from distant remote councils?

Have a look at the make of the map of the new greater Cairns council area including the abolished Douglas Shire council at http://www.strongercouncils.qld.gov.au/Portals/0/ReformDocuments/Cairns_map.pdf and tell me what possible sense that makes.

Consider what the residents of the town of Maleny situated atop the Blackall Ranges are already enduring at the hands of its 'local' council situated way down on the coast in Caloundra:

"It seems the Woolworths development site on the bank of Obi Obi Creek (opposed by 80% of Maleny residents) was but a precursor to the main development battle looming on Maleny's horizon. Several years ago a group of concerned local citizens managed to convince the local council to purchase a large tract of land on the eastern side of the town for future use as a cultural and recreational precinct with land to be set aside for forest restoration.

"A few years down the track and surprise, surprise, the local council in a closed door session decided to build an 18-hole golf course with heaps of condominium houses. It seems they are hell bent on development at all costs, even in their dying days as a local authority. ...

"Despite a protracted public consultation process which clearly showed what the majority of local people wished to see happen on this site, they are sticking with their coastal perceptions of what Maleny should be." (http://www.malenyvoice.com)

The residents of Maleny oppose amalgamation because they know that this will make an already bad situation even worse. Before long it will be the residents of Noosa who will also be made to endure such secretive unnaccountable decision-making by remote 'representatives'. If anything, reforms are needed in the other direction and quite a number of larger councils should be broken up.

Forrest Gump and funguy: thanks for your encouraging words. Please feel welcome to contact me through http://candobetter.org/user/3/contact .

--

TurnRightThenLeft: thanks for the link. Have posted to their forum at: http://www.noamalgamation.stanthorpe.net/forums.php

Ma Edda
Here Here and very well said.
I just wish he would sack the lazy corrupt Gold Coast council andput it in the hands of a public comittee.
The enormous cost to QLD rate payers for all these different councils to sit on their bums doing little for their people and areas- Except as you say favour for mates must stop.
It certainly is the best thing he has done. Unlike Rudd hes a leader.
Pity he is not interested in running against Howard.
Thanks Ma Edda

Ah pale why do I bother? do you understand from my past posts that once I thought Latham was the very future of the ALP?
I lived on his Webb page and re posted his every word in a newsletter I did for workers at home.
I thought I had found the answer to Labors factionalism and its future directions.
I feared his early gaining of the leadership, and his alliance with that dreadful man Simon Crean.
And just maybe I was right.
In any event he was at best a shadow of the man he told us he was.
His talk of brave new plans and directions , a fog, a nothing ness, he at the end took his advice from those he always said hurt the party more than they helped.
Months before he destroyed my party and my country's IR system with his gift to Howard it was clear to those who do not just dream but understand politics he had zero plans for us and zero chance of victory.
Hiding during the tsunami was not as a result of illness it was standard practice for this man who had his whole life in politics handed to him and remains bitter still that he was unable to do anything with it.
I however agree Queensland is facing what other states did long ago, less councils driven by personal needs of builders, real estate people and developers a good thing less councils and less crimes against rate payers.
The day my council is taken over will be a victory for rate payers and a loss for self interested councilors.

Belly,

Your cases both against Mark Latham and in favour of forced amalgamations remain unconvincing. You have not addressed any of the points I have made in my posts about either.

The fact that you once actively supported Mark Latham holds little weight IMHO. There are plenty of people in politics, with shallow levels of commitment, who are willing to climb aboard political bandwagons, only to make themselves scarce once the going gets rough.

If you were so actively involved with Mark Latham's camapaign, why won't you show where anything he has written in his book was wrong? Presumably you have a copy of "The Latham Diaries" and it would be take little effort on your part to show where he was factually wrong if you are correct in what you write.

Why hold Latham solely responsible for the defeat of 2004, when so many others within the Labor Party clearly acted against the interests of the Labor Party prior to the 2004 elections?

What of his account of his attempt to get Steve Bracks to honour his promise to build the Scoresby Freeway?

Tuesday 27 April 2004 (The Latham Diaries, page 238)

"Nothing to cheer me up in Melbourne, least of all our meeting with Bracks this morning accompanied by Faulkner, Crean and McMullan. We tried to get him to reverse his broken promise on the Scoresby Freeway. He went to the last state election promising a freeway and, as soon as he won, announced a tollway. No wonder people hate politics and politicians. Bracks has broken his promise hoping that the odium will wear off by the next state election.

"But we're copping the fallout electorally - disastrous polling right through the eastern suburbs. We can kiss goodby to any hope of winning La Trobe, Deakin, Aston or Dunkley, and Anna Burke will be lucky to hang on in Chisholm. I may as well not bother campaigning in the marginal seat belt of Melbourne.

(tobecontinued)

(continuedfromabove)

"Bracks, however, was unmoved, even when Faulkner put it right on him: 'The stakes are high in what we are talking about. You need to know Steve, this could mean the difference between forming a forming a Federal Labor Government and falling a few seats short. You need to think about how history will see that'. Yes, a day of deep and abiding Labor history as Bracks refused to help, not budging an inch. Sat there like a statue, that silly grin on his face."

Note that Latham's predictions were sadly borne out. He and Federal Labor paid the consequences for Bracks' dishonesty with the Victorian public, whilst Bracks was re-elected in 2006 largely as a consequences of the revulsion against the outrages of the Howard Government that he helped to get re-elected in 2004. I believe that Beattie is playing the same cynical game in 2007, although, this time, obviously in an more overt and spectacular fashion.

---

On the forced amalgamations, if you are convinced that the councillors, who are opposed to the amalgamations are only motivated by the needs of 'builders, real estate people and developers and real estate people', then why can't they trust the people in these shires to decide for themselves, by allowing them to vote in a referendum to coincide with the next federal election? Surely Peter Beattie, who we all know to be a resolute opponent of developers, real estate sharks an land speculators, would have no difficulty in convincing the majority of people in these shires of the merits of his case?

In reality, the situation is the complete opposite. It is Beattie and his government who are for the developers and against the interests of local residents and it is those councillors who most resolutely oppose the amalgamations who are defending their communities.

The Big Engine That Could - A Tale of the Days of Steam, continued 2.

Not only did Gordy have feelings, he had a quiet pride in what he did. He pulled himself, and seven carriages, every night around a new rail loop servicing the Kurnell Peninsula and the giant seawater desalination plant that was already abuilding at its distal extremity. Gordy was a heavy, powerful Pacifier class 4-6-2 locomotive. Which was not to say he was any dummy. He had been designed and built in Australia, by Australians, in the days before political correctness had engendered national self-doubt, and rampant OH&S disease had gripped the country. He knew his limitations, few that they were. All of which combined to make so much of what had happened recently so unbearable.

Gordy had been censored! And he knew it! Two of the first class carriages of his train of thoughts had been decoupled on the Beautiful Tears spur line only the other day, to the utter confusion of the surfing public! This was no way to run an online service, and attract users, thought Gordy, ever one to be looking for the reasoning behind decision-making in the public arena. He was at a complete loss to understand why the information, first class information, carried in those carriages was a matter of such sensitivity: it was effectively a verbatim replication of information available from the Fat Controllers' website. It was of interest to everybody. And it was of great importance to Gordy, too, for it provided visible justification for his dedicated adherence to the timetabling and standing operating procedures of the online service he helped provide.

Gordy looked fixedly across the roundhouse at Graham, a sleek, blue, diesel-electric mainliner fitted with all the latest digital controls, whom he suspected of being quite friendly with some of the Fat Controllers. "You're a count.., you're a count..., you're a count..." said Gordy, who had recently contracted the affliction of stuttering at the most inopportune of times from another engine, Stevie. "You're a country express, ...

TBC

The Big Engine That Could - A Tale of the Days of Steam, continued 3.

... Graham, can you see that I did anything wrong in embarking the passengers I did in those two first class carriages?" Graham, the modern mainliner, however, was unable to point to anything that had happened on the Perfect Tears spur, except, perhaps, for Gordy's rather aggressive tailgaiting of a small rail motor carrying a lone single mum on a visit from the USA. Even in that, however, Gordy had proceeded in accordance with all the signals, and had been personally polite to the tourist, refraining from blowing the whistle right next to her ears.

The time had come for Gordy to leave Wally Heights for the long downhill commute to the new loop line. The lights of the polyethnic megalopolis lay stretched out before him, and he just let gravity do its work and listened to the sybillant musical jinkling of the tender coupling beneath his footplate as he rolled to work: "Mugincoble, libel, litigate, lugubrious, lubricate..." and words like that the coupling seemed to half ring, half mutter, and, before he knew it, he was standing at the first of the new platforms on the loop line.

"Far Kurnell" sang out the turbaned platform attendant. Instinctively, Gordy looked around to see what had gone wrong (so far as a rigid locomotive could 'look around', that is), then sheepishly realizing his mistake, let out a big puff of steam. He still hadn't got used to the new station names, and this one caught him out every time. Then "stenkleerdorsclosing", and he was under way again, staff in hand, on the single track line to the next station, Towkesville. Chuff. Chuff chuff. Chuff chuff chuff chuff, chuff chuff chuff chuff, Gordy repeated to himself, ever faster and faster. He was revelling in being able to use a word that was not an anthropomorphic simile and yet described exactly what he was doing. At work, doing what he did best, Gordy was definitely chuffed!

But what Gordy really wanted was his two carriages back on line.

Be careful Forrest only the letter T separates a Wit from a Twit

"Didn't Latham label Peter Beattie an 'A-grade arsehole'? Seemed like a fairly apt description to me. In fact, it could be applied to every current state Labor premier with the possible exception of Mike Rann. They really are an incorrigible bunch of cynical opportunists and third-rate apparatchiks."(Quote:Dresdener)

PLEASE...do not leave Rann out.....

PRIME Minister John Howard has ruled out a referendum on industrial relations, saying the public did not want to vote on every major political issue.

State leaders have called for a constitutional convention after the High Court ruled that Mr Howard's use of the constitution's corporations power to take control of state industrial relations systems was valid.

Mr Howard denied that his government would use the ruling to grab more powers from the states.
And he rejected calls for a referendum, saying there was no need.

"We didn't have a referendum because we didn't need one. We enacted a law which we believe was constitutional and the High Court agreed with us," Mr Howard told Macquarie Radio.

"If we do that every day, if commonwealth governments do that every day, (if you're saying) that every time there's a controversial issue we should have a vote, I don't think the Australian people would appreciate that."

All roads that lead to Noosa get attention, its just a shame they don't care about the rest. The Pomona - Kin Kin road has a one lane bridge, there is an accident every week, 6 people have died this year, Bob Abbott has done nothing.

He deserves to join the unemployed, where he belongs.

Ginx,

What are your objections to Rann?

It seems conclusive that Beattie, Iemma, Bracks (and almost certainly his successor Brumby) and Lennon are no better than corporate glove puppets. My mind remains open about the other Labor Premiers.

Can you enlighten me about Rann?

Belly
Well at least we agree on the council issue. What on earth do you have against Simon Crean?
By the way your milky bar kid had a lot to do with stuffing his intentions.
Peter Beattie and Simon are both ok in my eyes.
Mark was stabbed big time in the back Belly and was unwell on top of that.
I prefered him to Kevin to be honest. Please note its nOT personal just going on his past QLD peformance - or lack of.
Find another leader.

Stabbed in the back? Mark Latham? pale that is a huge grin!
Crean? the man was as unpopular as any leader the ALP ever had as handy as an ash tray on a motor bike.
His father a party legend but little of worth transfered to him.
Milky bar kid? well if you like but clearly he is our next Prime Minister.
Now may I remind those who are putting the boot into our states leaders, take a breath now it will not be pleasant.
Each and every one of them, the whole lot, recently won an election VERY CLEAR WON.
Against dreadful oppositions the electorate did not want to govern.
Now hard as some may find it so far in my view we have not found a better system of government than Democracy and those elections are the result of it.
The people have spoken and the fact some do not agree is not proof they are wrong, how bad would the oppositions be? those the voters rejected?

Belly wrote:

"Now may I remind those who are putting the boot into our states leaders, take a breath now it will not be pleasant. Each and every one of them, the whole lot, recently won an election VERY CLEAR WON."

The fact that Beattie won the elections in 2006 no more makes the enforced council amalgamations right than does the fact that Howard won the 2004 elections make "Work Choices" right.

Neither political leaders informed their respective electorates of their intentions, so as far as I am concerned, neither are entitled to impose their unpopular and harmful policies on the electorate.

In fact Beattie did not 'win' the 2006 election in the true sense. It was been widely and repeatedly acknowledged, particularly by the Courier Mail Newspaper that voters did not like Beattie. They only chose Beattie's government as a lesser evil to the Liberal/National Opposition.

In spite of all this, Rupert Murdoch's Courier Mail also dishonestly holds the 2006 election victory to have given Beattie a mandate to amalgamate Councils (see "Courier Mail newspaper supports trampling of democratic rights" at http://candobetter.org/node/106, linked to from http://candobetter.org/NoForcedAmalgamations/forum, http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,22145991-13360,00.html and http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,22211101-13360,00.html.).

I see that once again you have avoided addressing my core argument, that is that state Labor governments have been winning elections since at least 2001, by relying on the unpopularity of Howard's Government that they themselves have repeatedly connived to keep in power. All of them, are so inept and corrupt that none could ever hope to be re-elected on their own merits.

This is what Latham revealed in his diaries about the NSW, Victorian and Tasmanian Governments and once again, I see that, in spite of your claimed familiarity with Mark Latham and your claims to have been devoted supporter of him, you have dodged responding to, presumably, because the facts contained in "The Latham Diaries" don't sit easily with the view that you now choose to peddle, that is that Mark Latham alone was the cause of Labor's 2004 election defeat.

Just let me know when you would like to come out doughnutting with me, daggett, and I'll stick the boot into the old coach and four and we'll lay some rubber around a few Sections of the Commonwealth Electoral Act! (I speak figuratively, of course, as everybody knows horseshoes and coach tyres are made of wrought iron.)

I wouldn't like to think that "The Big Engine that Could - A Tale of the Days of Steam" had diverted attention from the positively excellent revelations of inconsistency as between various State premiers and presumed Labor aspirations to power federally that you are achieving. Let me know if you feel Gordy's experiences detract from the thread, and I'll see to it that he is only allowed out on other lines. I just felt that viewers, users, lurkers and (possibly) shirkers should all be aware of the prospects of censorship, even here on OLO, when the interests or even significance, of the Fat Controllers is exposed.

And believe me, you are threatening to expose them as much, if not more, than I through your documenting of the paradoxical behaviour of what are presented as being members of the same 'team'. I do not claim any alliegance to that team myself, and so have no vested interest in defending one as opposed to another in this charade. Nor do I take the opportunity to illuminate these paradoxes myself for partisan purposes.

The key to understanding the paradoxes lies in gaining an understanding of the mechanics whereby candidates across the entire political spectrum may get declared to have been elected.

Belly's a good forward in thugby league Team Labor. He gets knocked down, but he gets up again, you'll never ever keep him down. He gets knocked down, ........ Belly is right about one thing. There have been elections relatively recently in all these States. The questions Belly, and everybody else, need to ask is "were those election results untainted by manipulation?", and "how much manipulation need be present to totally control an outcome in my Division, State, or nation?

Well I once was a thugby? forward, my sport now is verbal tennis.
Latham? well my claims are true and why would I debate further, he will be dragged out by Johny short bottoms short on truth mob soon enough.
Now did I hear right? Labor only got elected because the other mob are worse? no contest quite true!
But that being true how bad would they be in government?
Never know will we voters spoke in every state and territory.
And are about to make it a full house.

"Don't let Peter Beattie save John Howard's political hide"

If you believe the AC Neilson poll today (which John Howard obviously does) it shows that Kevin Rudd will win 17 seats in Qld.

Enough to form Govt. from Qld alone. So sorry Daggett you are incorrect, Peter Beattie has swung votes to the ALP.

ruawake, I don't follow your logic. I get the swing indication, but I fail to see how you can chalk that up to Beattie's efforts.

ruawake,

I just hope that the AC Nielsen poll is right (or at least right in the sense that not more than 45% will be voting for the Coalition - I consider that an astonishingly good result for Howard given the abysmal record of himself and his lazy, spiteful and incompetent government, notwithstanding Beattie and all of Labor's other obvious shortcomings).

Whatever the truth of the matter, it defies logic that the support that Federal Labor seems to maintain in Queensland could possibly be the result of the appalling antics of Beattie and Fraser. Perhaps, on this occasion, voters may just be astute to understand the distinction between Federal Labor and Queensland state Labor that I have tried to explain in this forum discussion. After all, Rudd has at least made his opposition to the forced amalgamations known (of course, not anywhere nearly as strongly as he should have).

Wherever the truth may lie,it would be folly for those who wish to get rid of John Howard's odious government in 2007 to allow the AC Nielsen poll to cause themselves to become complacent about the issue of the forced council amalgamations. Every decent democratic-minded opponent of John Howard should also make a point of doing whatever they possibly can to support rural and regional Queenslanders in their fight against Beattie's dictatorial actions.

For my part I have put my thoughts on this matter in an article entitled "Will John Howard save democracy in Queensland?" at http://candobetter.org/node/146.

Check out Independent MP Peter Andren's Media Release:


http://candobetter.org/node/148 http://candobetter.org/NoForcedAmalgamations
http://www.peterandren.com

Howard's paper thin hypocrisy on amalgamations

Media Release

Thursday 16 August 2007

The Coalition Government has exposed its hypocrisy on council amalgamations with its current attack on the Queensland Government according to Independent Member for Calare, Peter Andren.

"When I took a delegation of local mayors to Canberra several years ago to see then Local Government Minister Wilson Tuckey, he was enthusiastic about the need for mergers of councils," Mr Andren said.

"Evans, Oberon and Bathurst Councils were then facing amalgamation and he voiced strong support for amalgamations in the interests of better council management.

"Both Liberal and Labor Governments have never backed away from such policy.

"The Prime Minister talks of giving people a say in the process. How come the limited public input into the recent federal electorate boundary changes was largely ignored, especially from people strongly opposed to the ridiculous boundaries for the new Calare?

"There are no referendums for state or federal boundary changes, why the concern over local government boundaries determined by the same commission process?

"This is pure unadulterated election year populism from a government that is philosophically at one with any state labor Government in wanting to wind down local government to a more politically controllable entity.

"I personally oppose council amalgamations unless there are overwhelming financial reasons that will benefit ratepayers. But the major parties are as one in their desire to reduce local people power.

"Wilson Tuckey proved that when he was federal Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government," Mr Andren said.

---

Peter Andren is the popular Independent Federal MP representing the NSW rural electorate of Calare. Peter Andren had announced his nomination as a candidate for the state of NSW in the forthcoming Senate elections. However, he has since been diagnosed as having cancer so has been forced to withdraw his nomination so that he can focus his energies on treatment for the condition and recovery.

For further information: 02 6332 6229 or 0427 480 825 or visit http://www.peterandren.com

The article "Dictatorial Conduct" by myself, just published today on Online Opinion, may be of interest.

To quote from the teaser on the Online Opinion home page: "Premier Peter Beattie's dictatorial conduct about local council amalgamations is rivaled only by that of John Howard."

The article is at http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=6261
The forum discussion is at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6261

The article "Dictatorial Conduct" published on OLO is indeed of interest. It provides further evidence of the cynical political stuntsmanship of which you rightly complain.

It seems as if there may be some degree of misunderstanding of the constitutional position with respect to local government, as evidenced by westernred's statement in that article's thread that "local government is in the constitution". No it's not, if by that s/he means the Commonwealth Constitution. The content of Section 119, and the (rejected) 1988 proposal for alteration is set out below.

"119. The Commonwealth shall protect every State against invasion and, on the application of the Executive Government of the State, against domestic violence."

Constitution Alteration (Local Government) 1988.

2. The Constitution is altered by inserting after section 119 the following section:

Local Government

"119A. Each State shall provide for the establishment and continuance of a system of local government, with local government bodies elected in accordance with the laws of the State and empowered to administer, and to make by-laws for, their respective areas in accordance with the laws of the State."

The rights and wrongs of Beattie's dictatorial conduct are a distraction. It's really all about the mechanical aspects of electoral roll integrity, closure of the rolls on the day of issue of the writs, usurpation of roll-keeping responsibility, and the capability (or otherwise) of centralized roll-keeping to meet the requirements of electoral legislation and hold up under scrutiny at roll close.

Pegasus in the "Dictatorial Conduct" thread states: "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." Never a truer word spoken. Pegasus concludes by observing that our present experience of democracy is in fact one of oligarchy. I would remind readers that in law, our governance is conducted under a mon-archy, and that perhaps it is time that, within the constraints of the law of the Constitution, that legal fact be unmistakeably demonstrated across this indissoluble Federal Commonwealth.