Comments on: Merger demerging http://www.ambitgambit.com/2006/05/29/merger-demerging/ Ambit Gambit Wed, 08 Feb 2012 14:01:16 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Graham Young http://www.ambitgambit.com/2006/05/29/merger-demerging/comment-page-1/#comment-1231 Graham Young Tue, 30 May 2006 09:58:32 +0000 http://localhost/ambit/?p=1395#comment-1231 That's my point - you can't and shouldn't keep it secret. But that's what they've effectively done up to date. I'm also led to believe that two different propositions were put to each of the parties' "management" committees, so it's quite possible that the disagreements we are seeing aren't back-pedalling at all, but the result of what one might charitably call "finessing". That’s my point – you can’t and shouldn’t keep it secret. But that’s what they’ve effectively done up to date. I’m also led to believe that two different propositions were put to each of the parties’ “management” committees, so it’s quite possible that the disagreements we are seeing aren’t back-pedalling at all, but the result of what one might charitably call “finessing”.

]]> By: R http://www.ambitgambit.com/2006/05/29/merger-demerging/comment-page-1/#comment-1232 R Tue, 30 May 2006 08:24:54 +0000 http://localhost/ambit/?p=1395#comment-1232 And just how would the parties keep secret such an important negotiation requiring the input of so many stakeholders? Its ok to have a little argy bargy. It will all have been worth it in the long run. 10 years from now (maybe even 10 months) Queensland will be thanking the Nats for their courageous decision. And just how would the parties keep secret such an important negotiation requiring the input of so many stakeholders?
Its ok to have a little argy bargy. It will all have been worth it in the long run. 10 years from now (maybe even 10 months) Queensland will be thanking the Nats for their courageous decision.

]]> By: Graham Young http://www.ambitgambit.com/2006/05/29/merger-demerging/comment-page-1/#comment-1233 Graham Young Mon, 29 May 2006 16:48:32 +0000 http://localhost/ambit/?p=1395#comment-1233 Yep, you're right Andrew. I did mean "pedalling". Yep, you’re right Andrew. I did mean “pedalling”.

]]> By: Andrew Elder http://www.ambitgambit.com/2006/05/29/merger-demerging/comment-page-1/#comment-1234 Andrew Elder Mon, 29 May 2006 16:23:55 +0000 http://localhost/ambit/?p=1395#comment-1234 Given that the National Party isn't a national party, the Queensland Nats would be better off shoring up their support base by ensuring that the Katter phenomenon is a one-off and that the independent movements that gave rise to Tony Windsor, Dawn Fardell and Peter Andren in NSW do not take root in Queensland soil. This would have to mean that they give up their dream of winning seats in Brisbane and the Gold Coast, recognising that the results of 1983 and '86 are freaks of history that can no more be repeated than the QLP split of 1957. It might be hard for the Nats to trust the Liberals as vote-winners, but without trust why have a Coalition at all? Queensland's urban Liberals seem best when they represent their communities at a grass-roots level, which makes it hard for them to regain the statewide focus lost when Llew Edwards retired. The research sounds right - it takes two parties to shore up the conservative vote in Queensland. A unified entity would be more vulnerable to independents and Hansonites than a vigorous National/Queensland Party - not less. Urban(e) Liberals would not recognise themselves among reactionary hayseeds, and leading people in country towns would become independents rather than submit to the city machine. True, there'd be more money in the short term - but that would go to Federal campaigns, and money doesn't cure all problems in state politics anyway. <blockquote>... with complaints leading to considerable back-peddling. </blockquote> I'd complain about the language used here: surely you mean "back-pedalling", as in futile attempts to reverse the course of a bicycle one is riding. Given that the National Party isn’t a national party, the Queensland Nats would be better off shoring up their support base by ensuring that the Katter phenomenon is a one-off and that the independent movements that gave rise to Tony Windsor, Dawn Fardell and Peter Andren in NSW do not take root in Queensland soil. This would have to mean that they give up their dream of winning seats in Brisbane and the Gold Coast, recognising that the results of 1983 and ’86 are freaks of history that can no more be repeated than the QLP split of 1957. It might be hard for the Nats to trust the Liberals as vote-winners, but without trust why have a Coalition at all?
Queensland’s urban Liberals seem best when they represent their communities at a grass-roots level, which makes it hard for them to regain the statewide focus lost when Llew Edwards retired.
The research sounds right – it takes two parties to shore up the conservative vote in Queensland. A unified entity would be more vulnerable to independents and Hansonites than a vigorous National/Queensland Party – not less. Urban(e) Liberals would not recognise themselves among reactionary hayseeds, and leading people in country towns would become independents rather than submit to the city machine. True, there’d be more money in the short term – but that would go to Federal campaigns, and money doesn’t cure all problems in state politics anyway.

… with complaints leading to considerable back-peddling.

I’d complain about the language used here: surely you mean “back-pedalling”, as in futile attempts to reverse the course of a bicycle one is riding.

]]>