"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.