Premier Campbell Newman said he would hit the ground running and as such so should objections to the excessive spending. Based on current policies the plan is to run up debt by about $20 billion (about $4500 per person on top of $13000 debt already) in the next 4 years  and this should be of concern to all Queenslanders. If this is done and the revenue numbers are correct it could lead to further downgrades of our debt rating leading to higher interest on our enlarged debt. Sale of the remaining $3 billion approx of QR National is probably a good idea but hardly puts a dint in our debt. If the projections of the coal price and production are not correct it is fair to say that debt will rise much quicker. This is a serious situation even more serious than the federal debt as we must pay it back for real where as federal debt can be paid back by just printing money and eventually causing high inflation. If we do get in a much worse position the federal government may not bail us out if it then threatens their credit rating. With all this debt now it is not the time to run it up quicker and this is a risk with the Premier as he has form in this area with Brisbane City Council being a high taxing high spending government willing to run up debt when he was mayor. So the question is do you want small pain now for more gain later and more gain overall or do you want to run up the credit card now so that potentially we will have much more pain in the future. A hiring freeze should be implemented in the public service with the new bureaucracies which are to be created to obtain workers from within the existing workforce. So when you go asking the current government for more money consider the debt to be your own as it will be passed on to you one day unless you leave QLD of course. Do you want that extra bit of road or an extra teacher for $4500 for every member of your family. With education the teacher student ratio is not the main reason for a good or bad outcome as Shanghai apparently scores better than us but has a 1 to 40 ratio. Of course things like health or policing it is advisable to keep the number of frontline staff but it is almost certain that the health bureaucracy is bloated so less spending on health might be possible with slightly higher outcomes.

To be fair to the new government I do accept that it is possible that they might be fiscal conservatives and get serious now that the vote buying activities involved in the election process are over. I think it is important that you send an email to your local member stating that you want debt reduction not more and more spending until debt is under control and they are more likely to do it than if nobody says anything. If you happen to have  a Labor member in your seat they might be useful because despite their record it will not take them long to start criticising the government if they are pushed along a bit. I do have slightly more faith that the LNP will listen to you than an ALP government would.

It is interesting that Bob Carr has said previously that the US is a bit paranoid and should not be relied on for intelligence based on past performance. Now he says ignore all my real opinions I am part of the Labor machine. I am paraphrasing of course but this is about what he has said. I happen to agree with the real Bob Carr but as a puppet he will be worse than Kevin Rudd at least he was autonomous possibly too much as he did not make a phone call to Indonesia while we cut off a significant part of their food supply probably meaning he was not even told. So to summarize it goes from bad to worse. Even should you not agree with me and the real Bob Carr I think you can agree that having a human doing the job is better than a puppet.

With the release of the important Finkelstein report into media inquiry we need to be realistic and accept that it indicates we should be censored (Winston Smith would understand). These are the reasons why:

• It would be fair to say that we would be campaigning against a policy rather than covering it? We lack sufficient resources to completely cover a topic and are only able to indicate what is wrong with a presented policy.
• We believe in free and open markets especially of the ideas kind. We are very unlikely to simply support a government because they are in charge or to be loyal to the government in the national interest based on their self serving opinion.
• We are not funded via the tax payer or friends of those in the media enquiry or indeed in the likely make up of the News Media Council
• We could have a yearly hit rate in excess of the threshold. I’m not sure why they would use an arbitrary and non-representative indicator such as that, what does it include reloading a page, web crawlers, images…
• Our political views are unlikely to ever completely match the government of the day so we would always be at odds with the current policies
• We have a problem with propaganda, deception and lies instead preferring an open media that will cover many topics from all angles.
• We believe in science and a rigorous approach to evidence and holding organisations to account

So we will await the letter from the Media Council indicating the reason from above about why we should be censored.