The Australian reports Newspoll’s quarterly survey of Queensland state voting intention has Labor leading the Coalition 60-40 on two-party preferred, up from 59-41 in the October-December survey. The Liberals are down from 26 per cent to 22 per cent and the Nationals, who switched leaders from Jeff Seeney to Lawrence Springborg on January 21, are up weakly from 9 per cent to 10 per cent. These measures have been erratic: the Liberal vote was up 5 per cent in the previous survey, and the Nationals’ share of the Coalition vote is invariably higher at actual elections than in mid-term opinion polls. The two-party figures however have been rock solid, ranging from 59-41 to 61-39 in the four Newspoll surveys since the September 2006 election. Premier Anna Bligh’s satisfaction rating is up from 59 per cent to 64 per cent, higher than any figure achieved by Peter Beattie after January 2004. The one piece of good news for the Coalition is Lawrence Springborg’s 40 per cent approval rating, 12 per cent higher than any recorded by Seeney and even 6 per cent higher than Springborg achieved in his last poll before the 2006 election. Bligh’s 64-18 lead as preferred premier compares with 66-11 in the only Bligh-versus-Seeney poll, and 58-28 in the last Beattie-versus-Springborg poll in 2006.
Actually the other thing you all might like to take into consideration is that there was never even any allegations of corruption against Joh arising out of the Fitzgerald Inquiry. The only charge he ever faced was perjury and he was not convicted. He had a hung jury as did Brian Green in Tasmania a week or so ago. I don’t hear any allegations that he corrupted the jury selection process. The other fact that seems to be missed by a lot of people is that the Fitzgerald Inquiry was an inquiry into the Police Service not into Joh’s administration.
51 [The other fact that seems to be missed by a lot of people is that the Fitzgerald Inquiry was an inquiry into the Police Service not into Joh’s administration.]
The Police force and the Bjelke Peterson government were so dysfuntionally enmeshed that the two were intertwined. Why do you think they were asking about the doctrine of the separation of Powers when Joh fronted the Fitzgerald Inquiry? Any suggestions as to why they would do that, Barry?
Bjelke-Petersen cultivated a close relationship with the police service, often at the expense of the relevant Minister for Police.
In 1976, after attempting to initiate inquiries into police violence and reform the police force, Police Commissioner Ray Whitrod resigned, alleging interference by Bjelke-Petersen with his position.
Bjelke-Petersen had him replaced as Commissioner by the relatively junior Terry Lewis, who worked closely and directly with Bjelke-Petersen on a wide variety of matters, and who would later be revealed to be corrupt by the Fitzgerald Inquiry.
53 ruawake, Terry Lewis also jumped over 400 places in seniority because he wrote endless letters to Joh recommending himself as Police Commissioner.
Extensive Special Branch monitoring (including telephone tapping) of suspected subversives was routine, including not only Labor Party parliamentarians, but also National Party figures who had incurred Bjelke-Petersen’s displeasure.
Bjelke-Petersen used the police for his own political purposes. 🙁
Barry, are you saying the jury member was not a member of the “Friends of Joh” group?
51 Barry – “The other fact that seems to be missed by a lot of people is that the Fitzgerald Inquiry was an inquiry into the Police Service not into Joh’s administration.”
Now Barry, this is not really accurate is it? Talk about gild the lily.
“While the terms of the inquiry were initially narrow, restricted only to the specific allegations raised against specific persons named in the media over a period of just five years, Fitzgerald used his moral authority to lever the inquiry into a position of being able to inquire into any relevant matter.
This enabled him to set a new precedent for Royal Commissions in Australia generally, using innovative methods such as indemnities from prosecution for key witnesses to secure vital evidence. The inquiry was initially expected to last about six weeks; it instead spent almost two years conducting a comprehensive investigation of long-term, systemic political corruption and abuse of power in Queensland.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitzgerald_Inquiry
I seldom agree with Senator George Brandis (Liberal) but I do agree with his statement on Stateline last night, the gist of which was that the coalition might be polling a bit better in QLD, if the leader of the National Party (Mr Springborg) hadn’t spent the last three months telling everyone that they (the coalition) are hopeless and unelectable.
Interestingly, on the same program Mr Springborg said that he will not lead the coalition in its present form, at the next election.
It will be interesting to see if either of the current QLD National Party or Liberal party ‘leaders’ are still there, come the election.
58 Fargo61, I doubt that what Springborg says will make a scrap of difference either way. It is the perpetual infighting, brawling with the other party and a refusal to develop a policy position on anything that is damaging the coalition.
In parliament because of their lack of policy development they resort to asking questions based on whatever story the Courier Mail has run that morning. They are beyond hopeless and do not behave anywhere near an opposition let alone government.
Barry, two words, “historic revisionism”, mean anything to you old son?
Barry does has a point, there are probably as many crooks and theives in this and previous ALP governments in QLD as Joh had.
Would anyone care to examine the precurinary interests of current ALP members and report back?
Colliwobble
Your point is? Would you care to comment on the Liberal leader who was the principle of a law firm that lost millions?
So the Qld Nats have decided to poll all their members on whether they want to merge all the conservative forces in Queensland, that is the easy part. The tricky bit will come when they try to round up the Queensland Liberals, One Nation, Family First and whatever other conservative forces they want to meld into the new party. Just what are the Nationals going to offer the other parties to make it worth while their joining them?
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,23490950-5003402,00.html
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/queensland/nats-take-merge-vote-to-members/2008/04/05/1207249538861.html
61 collingwoodlegend – I don’t necessarily accept your first assumption (without proof) but even if that is the case so what? Does that excuse Joh? I’m not saying or defending any particular party or party member whereas Barry is.
ruawake Says:
April 5th, 2008 at 8:30 pm
Colliwobble
Your point is? Would you care to comment on the Liberal leader who was the principle of a law firm that lost millions?
for your liberal crook I’ll match a labor crook, lets try Gordon Nuttal.
My point is this holier than thou shit that is flung around is rubbish! to suggest that there are more crooks in the Nats than the ALP is juvenial! I think they probably are both infected at historically equal rate. Who was the last peadophile from the Nats?
What do the Nations mean by polling all their members are they going to be subject to the same scrutiny as union elections and council elections with the vote supervised by the electoral commission? Or is it going to be some dodgy we’ll set up the question, we’ll send out the ballots and we will announce who won the vote as well?
65 Lets not pursue that line Colliwobble, for a start the Nuttall case is before the courts and it is not appropriate to discuss the case. The rest is just too silly for words.
65 collingwoodlegend – “My point is this holier than thou shit that is flung around is rubbish! to suggest that there are more crooks in the Nats than the ALP is juvenial!”
Or visa versa, as Barry was trying to do. So Barry didn’t have a point afterall did he? My point exactly. In which case the need for a change of government is not based on who has the longer list of villains but who is more capable of running the state.
I hope nobody is silly enough to stand in front of a Queensland Liberal tomorrow with a microphone or a camera. They will get knocked over in the rush of Liberals to breathlessly tell us that there is good news that the Nationals are going to be rebranded but unfortunately the Liberal Party can see no benefit in the proposal and will carry on as before.
The silence of the Liberals tonight so far does not auger well for a merger to proceed.
I acknowledge that i did not make my point all that well but to suggest the Nats are not fit for govt due to Fitzgerald is childish/undergraduate stuff. The Nats are not fit for govt for a whole host of reasons, my favourite at the moment is their central council meeting to discuss new colours and a new name! That’ll make Queensland a better place!
“Would anyone care to examine the precurinary interests of current ALP members and report back?” Was this comment “childish/undergraduate stuff” given that both sides have their villains and are dealt with in the main?
“I acknowledge that i did not make my point all that well but to suggest the Nats are not fit for govt due to Fitzgerald is childish/undergraduate stuff.” I agree with you on this but I don’t recall anyone using this argument in suggesting this Qld state opposition is not fit to govern. Of course there have been many instances where governments have used the past performances of past governments to win elections. Do you see this as “childish/undergraduate stuff”?
You only replace a government if the opposition is competent and the government is seen as less competent, not the other way around.
71 [The Nats are not fit for govt for a whole host of reasons, my favourite at the moment is their central council meeting to discuss new colours and a new name! ]
Colliwobbles, at least the Nationals did discuss the issue and are allowing their members to vote on it, the Libs couldn’t even bother to arrange for that democratic basic with their members and just flicked the proposal off to the Feds for a top down decision.
If the merger goes ahead, what would occur at the federal level? Would the Queensland Conversative Party (by what ever name it goes) have its own party room? Would all the current QLD federal members join too, and if not what effect would that have? What share of the oppostion front bench would they get?
Its ironic that the Liberal Party was the champion of democracy and plebicites when it came to local govt. amalgamations.
But when it comes to conservative amalgamation …. 😛
75 At this stage BSF the Pineapple Party is just a Queensland grab for power by the Nationals because Springborg blames Flegg for his last defeat rather than his own campaign.
At present it seems we going to have the Can Do Team at local council level led by the most senior elected Liberal in the land but who wins by denying links to the Libs, and a Liberal Party running three cornered contests against the Springborg Pineapple Party at both state and Federal Level.
All the while the Liberal Party will be split along the lines of Brough, Santoro and Thompson factional warlords.
Then we have Steve Dickson who is a Liberal who wants to join the Pineapple Party but the factions keep phoning him to say he can’t do that.
The rest of your questions have yet to be dealt with if the Pineapple Party ever gets any further than a secret vote of National supporters.
I am sure that if anybody asked Springborg who has lost the last two State elections as Opposition Leader in this state, how many elections have you lost he would most likely answer one, so convinced is he that the Liberals lost the last one.
Springborg says the Pineapple party will happen. He doesn’t say whether it will be this year, before the election, or this century but the silence of the Liberal Party is being maintained as far as I can see.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23493039-5006786,00.html
Yes, the Nationals are in raptures over the decision to form the Pineapple Party. Could someone please lend the Queensland Liberals a microphone, TV camera, fax or computer so that their reaction to the Nationals move can be recorded?
Young Libs have made their view pretty clear….
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,23488743-952,00.html
80 Yes, Indeed the Young Liberals did before the Nationals even made their decision, February in fact and they sat on it till Saturday afternoon. My point is what have the elected State Liberal representatives had to say on this matter since saturday. You could write their response on the back of a postage stamp,YL, and still have room to spare.
collingwoodlegend Says: @ 65,
[Who was the last peadophile from the Nats? }
Mate, I would strongly suggest that you don’t try and lead the discussion in that direction.
There are a number of people who would prefer you didn’t open up this under any circumstances.
What are you trying to say?
On some small ‘l’ liberal issues some Nats have a better record than many Libs: David Hicks, asylum seekers, Workchoices. Some supposed liberal Libs such as Pyne & Brandis never uttered a word about these but now post-Howard they accuse the Nats of being too conservative.
I see another lying Labor politician in Tasmania bites the dust. Is anobody keeping count throuighout Australia of disgraced Laborites. Must be quite a score by now.
Barry
Not sure of exact numbers but I believe it is running at about one tenth of liberal politicians suffering from memory loss.