The Labor promise not to 'cut' the public service is a harsh indictment of the Bligh(t) Labor political nepotism that wreaked financial havoc across the state with a hugely inflated public service (aka Labor party flunkies and functionaries being rewarded with 'good jobs' by a grateful if reckless government) that bled dry the states coffers like a rabid school of hungry Lampreys on a trout.
So...in summary the MENDERS are out...and the SPENDERS are back in. This will be most interesting. The Chook (I can't for the life of me spell her name!) claimed:
1)-We will not cut the public service
2)-We will not sell state assets.
3)-We will address the debt.
I'm most curious about how they will couple 2 with 3. They created the mess that drove a cash strapped Government under Newman to look for ways and means of finding fast cash (CashTrain anyone?)..so they targeted the easiest infrastructure behemoths to beget big bucks...the States remaining public assets. Labor sowed the seeds of the fiscal fiasco, and sadly, the 'menders' jumped at the easy money tool to fix it. This clearly alienated the public who did not want it's assets sold... but oh boy.. just wait until they start to suffer from the other less palatable means of performing radical surgery on the treasury!
Labors Chook claims she and her flock of roosters and hens will pay down 5.4 Billion in debt....over SIX years! That is not even a mild breeze in a tea cup let alone a storm! The ugly side of that coin is that while they are 'paying down the debt'....they will be incurring an interest bill of approximately $500 million PER YEAR! Now.. even Jack Frost in a coma could work out that you could do a heaven of a lot with that amount of coin at your disposal! (each year)
The problem is....'you'... the voter. You simply cannot work out what's best for you. It's plain and simple, so would it surprise you that you have been described as:
the bewildered herd, and they have a function in democracy too. Their function in a democracy, [Lippmann] said, is to be "spectators," not participants in action. But they have more of a function r than that, because it's a democracy. Occasionally they are allowed to lend their weight to one or another member of the specialized class. In other words, they're allowed to say, "We want you to be our leader" or "We want you to be our leader." That's because it's a democracy and not a totalitarian state. That's called an election. But once they've lent their weight to one or another member of the specialized class they're supposed to sink back and become spectators of action, but not participants. That's in a properly functioning democracy.Which says something about "Democracy"... and it's shortcomings. The next stop on this stopping all stations train line is... Tyranny, according to Plato, but knowing this, it could be avoided and be put on a diversion line that goes to benevolent dictatorship ? Dictatorships are not always bad, they are only said to be bad by the people who had benefitted most from the corruption of the 'democratic' system and will now lose their privilege and prestige.
A Dictatorship could be 'for a set period'..... and led by someone who knows the true meaning of "National" interest. This is how Rome was saved when Hannibal was at it's gates after destroying around 3 seriously big Roman Armies. The Romans appointed Fabius Maximus, a wise old Jedi to be dictator for something like 6 months.
Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus Cunctator c. 280 BC – 203 BC) was a Roman politician and general, who was born in Rome around 280 BC and died in Rome in 203 BC. He was a Roman Consul five times (233 BC, 228 BC, 215 BC, 214 BC and 209 BC) and was twice appointed Dictator, in 221 and again in 217 BC. He reached the office of Roman Censor in 230 BC. His agnomen Cunctator means "delayer" in Latin, and refers to his tactics in deploying the troops during the Second Punic War. He is widely regarded as the father of guerrilla warfare due to his, at the time, novel strategy of targeting enemy supply lines in light of being largely outnumbered.
So, although you, the reader, have been subjected to a level of anti Dictatorship propaganda that would probably fund 10 more moon landings plus a tour of Mars; history is on the side of 'Benevolent, wise dictator'. Even that luminary of the enlightenment Voltaire believed that an 'enlightened dictator' was the best for a nation.
Walter Lippman .....
Adherents of democracy, he wrote back in 1925, "encourage the people to attempt the impossible"—that is, to exercise sovereignty, and this can only result in their "interfering outrageously with the productive activities of the individual." This must at all costs be avoided "so that each of us may live free of the trampling and the roar of a bewildered herd." ....
With this, Lippmann reduced the "reality" of democracy to the manipulation of the "herd's" mind by the propagandistic conditioning conducted by the elite....
The bewildered herd who "drug themselves with pleasure . . . who have made the moving pictures and the popular newspapers what they are."
I have my own thoughts on these matters and those thoughts are found here:
Sadly, you, as a member of that 'herd' Lippman spoke of, would be prone and vulnerable to the propagandic and psychological forces that you don't understand, which are based on the correct assumption that people do not choose for rational reasons. So, for me to mainstream those ideas in the links above I would need to have a great deal of personal charisma, or to connect them to various trendy celebrities (who have credibility but no content!) and sporting personalities....they are the voices most Australians seem to listen to.
So what does one do? ... answer.."Just this"