Losing the mayoral election clearly wasn’t the end of the campaign.
In what could be described as an extraordinary commitment to political score-settling, an unsuccessful mayoral candidate continues her new occupation since losing last election, along with her failed male running mate: monitoring, personally attacking, criticising and publicly questioning almost everything the successful candidate does. Using loaded language aimed to incite hatred amongst those easily misled and therefore votes against him.
The latest instalment concerns Mayor Frank Wilkie’s proposed trip to Los Angeles with the SEQ Council of Mayors, branded a “jaunt” and a “free trip” before the delegation has even packed its bags.
Apparently “free” because it is fully funded by the Council of Mayors that has a membership cost of $35K per annum. Noosa has already benefited well and above this membership cost already as mentioned below.
What conveniently gets lost in the commentary is that this isn’t a sightseeing expedition. It’s a business delegation aimed at securing international connections and opportunities for South-East Queensland businesses ahead of the 2032 Brisbane Olympics.
The agenda includes advanced manufacturing, technology, infrastructure and the sports economy.
Apparently, exploring opportunities for local businesses is now worthy of ridicule simply because the Mayor has to get on a plane.
But this is hardly an isolated performance.
Previous instalments have included suggestions that the Mayor took time off from work to move furniture for a theatrical production - despite evidence he wasn’t even there. Not mentioning the weekends and nights he dedicates to the role.
There have also been allegations that he attacks women during Council debates, without justifiable examples or supporting evidence offered - just normal debate.
The formula is becoming familiar: take an event, attach an unflattering description, make it a personal attack add an insinuation and let social media do the rest.
And then there’s the curious approach to public debate. Comments from people challenging the author’s position have actually disappeared - been deleted despite claims that nothing was filtered out. Benefits from the Council of Mayors membership also deleted and never mentioned by the author.
It seems the commitment to holding others accountable doesn’t necessarily extend to allowing others to hold this critic accountable. Free speech for the critic. A rather shorter leash for the critics of the critic and constructive analysis.
Meanwhile, the tangible benefits of regional collaboration - including:
$2.7 million for Cooroy Sports Complex,
$880,000 for the Peregian coastal pathway and
Noosa’s participation in the $40 million Resilient Rivers regional investment -
receive considerably less attention.
The author is, of course, entitled to her opinion. But there is some relevant political history: having previously contested the mayoralty and lost to Wilkie, the persistent focus on the person who won inevitably raises questions about whether this is public-interest commentary or an election campaign that simply refuses to end.
Losing an election is part of democracy. Apparently, accepting the result is a rather more difficult exercise.
Perhaps the next Facebook post could turn the spotlight around.
How about publishing a balanced account of the benefits Noosa has received through Council of Mayors membership, rather than selectively highlighting the costs?
And perhaps leaving room for residents who disagree to have their say without their comments disappearing.
Because Noosa has enough real issues to debate without turning every mayoral activity into another episode of political theatre and personal attack. Hate speech has a tendency to escalate situations using social media.
This is the latest from the critic trying to turn everything back on those who are genuinely concerned for the safety of local politicians as well as others. Yes BE WISE to the nonsense linking genuine concerns to supposed attacks on election signs. Who knows who did it? Good publicity if you do it yourself.
The election is over. The Mayor has the job - let him get on with it - supporting businesses in this latest episode.
The community has moved on. Perhaps it’s time the unofficial opposition did too.
ALSO:
You cannot repeatedly publish highly personalised attacks on an elected Mayor, question his motives and portray a business delegation to Los Angeles as a personal jaunt, while positioning yourself as the authority on acceptable political behaviour.
Non disclosure that the author is a former mayoral and potential future mayoral candidate on these attacks is totally misleading.
Describing supporters of elected representatives as their "acolytes" is hardly an example of respectful political debate either.
Accountability works both ways.
If we are going to call out political grandstanding, exaggeration and attempts to damage reputations, we should be prepared to examine our own conduct by exactly the same standards.
Democracy requires scrutiny of politicians, but it also requires scrutiny of those who seek to influence public opinion about them.
PS: HE IS NOT OFF TO DISNEYLAND
AS POSTED BY THE FAILED MAYORAL CANDIDATE:
