Comment

Comment by Ruth Bonnett on February 2, 2012 at 5:29am

Hello Rob,

Thanks for posting this story.  I, too, think that such a parliament would help right the balance between SEQ urban voters and the producers of wealth: the productive rural and regional people who deal with mother nature every year: rain or shine, flood or drought.  They have not the luxury of speculating about the climate, and propogating the outright lies spread by the illywhackers Flannery and co.  They live with it, and deal with the natural word every day.

On the other hand, urban centers are often the home of well intentioned 'Green' types would would not know a clump of buffel from a post.  They simply listen to the rhetoric, and rob productive people of their civil and political rights with every Green vote they cast. 

I have only a deep gratitude for the people of the bush who have taken time out of their busy schedules to help me gain a better understanding and appreciation for the environment, and the productive class who deal with the viscititudes of life better than most. 

I support any politician who works to represent their electorate. 

Many people think Oakshott and Windsor have damaged the reputation of independents in the parliament.  I say not.  These gentlemen have shown clearly what damage can be wrought when elected members do as they please, rather than what we want.

In most urban electorates, there is a choice between Labor, who has shown that they are quite simply unfit to govern, the LNP who will make ordinary people's lives a misery (judging from the track record of voting in State parliament and Newman's sad record in the city), and the Greens who have unwittingly supported a totalitarian regime in the bush due to the misinformation peddled by the extreme environmental movement.  

Independents are simply the premier choice for people who cannot bear to vote Labor, are wary of the LNP, and would not dare rob the state of any more wealth by casting the poverty Green vote.