The three-term ruling Queensland Labor Party appears to be in turmoil.
This is demonstrated by the internecine war in the party, which surfaced during the recent holiday trip of Queensland Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk to Italy.
As reported, members of her own entourage allegedly encouraged the “absent” premier to hand over the reins of power.
Recent decisions by the Palaszczuk government have gone down poorly with voters.
For example, the decision to offer public servants, distraught over The Voice’s defeat, a week’s mourning leave on full pay, was widely ridiculed.
The government’s adoption of the Path to Treaty Act, which will establish a truth-telling commission and a treaty with Indigenous people, has been branded racially divisive and may, following the withdrawal of support from the opposition, be doomed.
The Queensland Climate Transition Bill is another ill-conceived piece of legislation that provides for the phasing out of coal, oil, and gas exports by Dec. 31, 2030. The Bill also introduces a 75 percent emissions reduction target by 2030 from 2005 levels; as well as mandating net zero by 2035.
These decisions have certainly contributed to weakening optimism around a fourth term for the Labor Party and have eviscerated the premier’s electoral appeal.
Nevertheless, Ms. Palaszczuk has announced that she is the best person to lead Labor to a historic fourth election win in Queensland.
Moreover, the poll also revealed that 49 percent of men and 45 percent of women believe that Queensland is heading in the wrong direction, suggesting Labor could be on track for a bruising defeat in the forthcoming election.
The Liberal National Party (LNP) opposition can only lose the election if it cripples itself.
This is possible, and may even be likely, if it persists in a proposal to preference the Greens Party before Labor on its how-to-vote cards.
Of course, the logic behind the proposed preference deal is clear: such an “alliance” would prevent Labor from picking up marginal seats.
Nevertheless, it remains risky business because it could result in the election of a Greens Party candidate, who undoubtedly would benefit from Labor preferences.
Greens and LNP Hold Vastly Different ValuesQuite apart from these practical and cynical considerations, any preference deal would be risky for the LNP because the electorate, especially its own sympathisers, might accuse the party of sacrificing its principles to gain an assumed electoral advantage to deny Labor a fourth term.
Indeed, it is baffling why the LNP would even consider an unholy alliance with the Greens—a party that is communist-friendly and, as we now know, is also Hamas-friendly.
Indeed, while the Greens want to stop the mining and export of coal with immediate effect, China’s economy is still very much dependent on coal.
This admiration of China sits incongruously with the more balanced and realistic views of the LNP.
How then is it possible for the LNP to even consider giving the Greens Party their preferences—a party that admires an authoritarian regime and accuses Australia of being a racist country?
This is particularly so since the “miraculous” transformation of China into a world power has necessitated the adoption of disastrous air pollution and deforestation policies and has resulted in gross human rights violations.
Of course, the Greens Party’s perception of China will continue to play to its target Australian audience. But it does not hide the fact that these policies are not much more than soulless statements devoid of detail, compassion, and rationality.
It is thus to be hoped that the LNP shelves its planned “alliance” with the Greens Party because any collaboration with that party is electoral poison. hopefully, the LNP will reconsider its proposal and, in the process, confirm the continuing validity of the values upon which the party is based.