<< Back to article
Liblab is the new coalition. In an effort to silence the masses and the pesky distraction of the Greens, The Liblabs have formed a willing bond that has a measured pathway to success.
They share a common master and when time for members of this “club” is up, then a seat on the board of a monopolistic company awaits.
It is a sweet and cosy deal that neither Libs nor Labs can lose.
Some idle banter at question time, open a few child care centres here and there, unveil a plaque on a new grandstand, the odd appearance on some slick television campaign purporting “jobs”, a little handshaking with the great unwashed of Tasmania, sip a little cognac with the elite and when the time is right, shine a fat leather chair in some swank office.
Responsibility nil.
Accountability zero.
Commitment ha ha.
Requirements for a possie in the liblabs…..no conscience, no vision or foresight, a love of cognac and it helps to be a slippery as an eel.Posted by on 17/07/07 at 09:19 AMCorruption upon corruption!
Posted by Peter Bright on 17/07/07 at 09:39 AMI am reminded of two sayings which I will try to recall verbatim:
“talk quietly but carry a big stick” - a favourite of our ex Liberal Premier. There being some contention about whether this has been followed lately.
And the Jimmy Morrison /Doors song:
“They got the Gunns[apologies] but we got the numbers - gonna win yea, were takin’ over...”The only avenues are to vote for a different representative, be that representative - or find some way to obtain legal redress for being disenfrachised (having politicians that do not represent us - or as Jeff Malpas points out below - the truth.)
NCPosted by on 17/07/07 at 11:25 AMAnyone who has any faith in either faction of the Tasmanian lib/lab coalition certainly doesn’t have much sense. The liberals policies are exactly the same as labor, with just a few semantic differences. Will Hodgman, who by the way, has no experience of life whatsoever and has probably never held a real job in his life, is incapable of meaningful policy direction. This is part of his speech putting forth how the liberals will look at the future,
“Outlining a new alternative Liberal vision, Mr Hodgman promised to:
* Listen more to business.
* Establish a business round table consultative group.
* Review Tasmanian tax arrangements to encourage more long-term investment.
* Enhance the performance of government business enterprises such as Forestry Tasmania and Hydro Tasmania.
Other priorities included Hobart’s waterfront, better water infrastructure and dams, the establishment of a Tasmanian Future Fund to pay for public sector infrastructure, and improved medical education and housing.
Mr Hodgman also launched a new state Liberal logo: “Right Now: There is a Better Way”.
He firmly restated the party’s support for the proposed pulp mill.”
Priority, 1-2-3-4 all aligned to business, not people or the future. The only mention of the people these slaves of the corporate elite are supposed to represent, comes on the end of the last sentence. Surely anyone with half a brain can see our future under the lib/lab coalition is doomed, they have nothing of worth to say or propose, just more of the same corporate insanity.
Posted by on 17/07/07 at 11:52 AMThe problem is that the Liberals, not unlike Labour, also believe that every Tasmanian is as stupid as they are. Typical of stupid people really. This is the main reason they passionately resent new comers to the island and see them as trouble makers attempting to murky their own stale lukewarm little fish pond.
The glaringly obvious solution I see is to form a new middle of the ground political party based not on minority driven drivel as some of the green policies and other even kookier Family First type religious nutters masquerading as independents, but a party of reason for people of reason.
What Don Chip probably had in mind but long destroyed by the current crop of no hoper Democrats so afraid of offending anyone that they are incapable of having a clear view on anything, let alone expressing one.
If ever there was a time at state and federal levels to challenge the status quo of the non existent two party system with a party based on simple reason, this surely is one! And they would get my vote.
Politics, if this country to survive the current erosion of democracy at all levels, must be driven by much more than party donations and the news cycle!
Posted by on 17/07/07 at 01:03 PMThe Liberals acquiescence on this issue is symptomatic of the Tasmanian political structure. Environmentalism generally, and old-growth forest logging in particular, is not the most important issue for a large proportion of Tasmanians, or the sub-proportion of Tasmanians that are politically active. Those that are concerned fall into two camps: those opposed, Wilderness Society et al and those in favour, focused on the CFMEU, Gunns and their creations.
By those opposed to old growth logging focusing their energy on the Greens political party, while those in favour spreading their influence through the other two parties, providing financial support but being agnostic on most other issues, the position of the major parties as pro-logging in Tasmania has been effectively fixed. From some perspectives it might be better if the Greens dissolved, with their membership joining the Labor party or the Liberal party to fight the internal battle.
There is a difference with respect to the Pulp Mill, where the major concerns are not just about increased logging, but also about air quality in the Tamar valley, impacts on tourism and local amenity as well as the impact of pollutants such as chlorate and dioxins on the waters of Bass Strait, with potential dire implications for the fishing industry. In this respect, political party positions should cut across the usual pro-anti logging axis, so that both parties should be making an evidence-based planning decision. Clearly this hasn’t happened.
Perhaps this is habitual, the Liberals are used to taking Gunns position and haven’t revisited the numbers. It is also due to stereotyping, whereby the anti-pulp mill camp is identified as being a ‘Greeny’ issue, rather than being a genuine issue of local pollution impacts, with significant concerns by people who wouldn’t normally find common cause with the Greens or the Wilderness Society: IFT & the Fishermen being a case in point. It may also be due to the intellectual polarisation of Tasmania’s debate, with the major political parties focusing mainly on winning the argument at the ‘low-brow’ end of the spectrum, such as commercial television, which precludes developing an understanding of the complexity of issues such as air-borne and water-borne pollution modelling, on which the true decision should rest.
Obviously having a policy on auto-pilot undermines the credibility of the Liberals when it comes to issues of corruption or ‘Special Deals for Special Mates’. Strategically, the Tasmanian Liberals are pinioned by the right-ward movement of Labor economic policy and the lack of any genuine expectation of power in the short term. The only ‘base’ that can be relied upon is the moral or Christian right. Unless the Liberals can demonstrate that they are everything the Labor party is, but more honest and less corrupt, there is little reason for centrists to vote for them. The concepts on Christian compassionate conservatism could ring a chord on this point. But, just as the murky ties with the Exclusive Brethren made Rene Hidding ring hollow, so does Will Hodgman’s failure on the Pulp Mill.
It is impossible to argue for a return to ethical government whilst claiming that the ends justify the means for a special interest.
Conversely, standing against the pulp mill (until proper processes were followed) would be the strongest signal possible that the Liberals are willing to apply the rules of government without fear or favour. No ‘Special Deals for Special Mates’ must cut both ways.
Posted by on 17/07/07 at 01:19 PMWake up and smell the political realities people.
The Libs’ stance on the mill is entirely political - the financial offerings of Gunns means little if it only keeps them in opposition. No doubt if the Libs felt there was an overwhelming opposition to the mill and that by leading the opposition they could win government, then they more than likely would.
The prevailing view, however, would no doubt be that the voting public is not opposed to the mill. Remember the Green vote actually fell at the last election, and, while a protest of 10,000 people makes one think, it is a truth that those protesting against something are always more vocal than those who support a course of action.
If the Libs oppose the mill - or, more to the point, are seen to be opposing the mill simply by asking the questions that Sue Neales argues they should be asking (we all know that Labor is very quick to paint anyone who asks questions about the mill as opponents) - then they risk alienating much of their traditional support base.
If the Libs are to win the next election, they need three seats in three electorates and the most likely are Braddon, Bass and Lyons - probably in that order, definitely Braddon first. In terms of localised support, the North West has been pushing to have the mill in their backyard, so they’re hardly going to welcome Liberal opposition to such a project.
I’ve seen nothing that suggests that there is now a majority opposition to the pulp mill in Tasmania . . . and even if there was, would those people vote for the Libs? More likely, those opposed to the mill are either Green voters or Labor voters who will still vote for Labor but just aren’t happy with the mill.
The challenge for young Will is to ask enough tough questions about the mill approval process to keep Sue Neales and her ilk off his back, while attempting to gain more traction on issues which are more likely to assist in gaining votes - such as health.
Posted by on 17/07/07 at 01:46 PM7: You’ve got to sort out cause and effect here. I wouldn’t like to bet either way on a state wide referendum on the mill at this point. The reason that there isn’t a wider opposition to the mill is that the Libs have sat on their hands. Like it or lump it, the “anti greenie” message is deep in the Tasmanian way of thought. The great failure of the libs is that they haven’t been able to recognise that here is a tool ready to hand that could lever them into office. If they expect to sit back and wait for the majority of Tasmanians to be anti-mill before they’ll support them, they’re going to be in opposition for a long, long time. Parties that win lead popular opinion, not follow it.
If the Tasmanian mood swings strongly against the mill it’ll be the greens who cash in, not the libsPosted by on 17/07/07 at 07:49 PMRick Pilkington wrote: “ Harsh words indeed Sue Neales, yet I believe the majority of Tasmanians would agree with her. . .”
I’m certainly not one of them. This article just reeks of spin. The truth, as we can see across the globe, is that the two-party system actually doesn’t work. Look at the disaster playing out in Britain and America.
Sue Neales said in her article:
“It is now seven months since Julian Green, the highly respected public servant .....”Julian Green sat on our planning commission year after year after year whilst our water was contaminated with pesticides through spraying operations carried out at the behest of thuggish money-grubbing forest-rape corporations. He sat on the planning commission ticking boxes and making weak recommendations whilst our temperate rainforest was decimated. Then he had the gall to write to our council saying there would be ‘no overt protection for rural residents’ when we complained of our drinking water being contaminated by pesticides etc.
Sigh. Apart from the internet tea leaves are now the last source of reliable information.
Posted by on 17/07/07 at 09:38 PM“The problem is that the Liberals, not unlike Labour, also believe that every Tasmanian is as stupid as they are. . .”
The problem is that the system is rigged. Both major parties believe they can do what they like and they will get in regardless.
We have major problems with our electoral system. We should not have to put a preference vote against candidates and parties that are completely unnacceptable. We should have the opportunity to be well-informed on the backgrounds and beliefs of all candidates but media coverage has continued to be pathetic. Our candidates and parties should not be subject to the over-arching influence of large corporations.
If we want an electoral system and a viable economic system as well then large corporate influence needs to be dismantled.
There’s an urgent need to think in new ways and start designing alternative systems of governance. The ones we have don’t work.
“..a confederal direct democracy of local assemblies may seem utopian ...If social ecologists appear to be going against the grain of ‘human nature’ it is worth reminding ourselves that face to face democracy has a lineage going back thousand of years to our tribal past. As historian Jane Mansbridge has argued, for more than 99 per cent of our history we lived in hunter-gatherer bands, which in all probability, practiced a form of egalitarian, face to face democracy...”
http://socialecologylondon.wordpress.com/2007/03/11/social-ecology-in-the-uk/Posted by on 17/07/07 at 09:59 PMThat’s why we collectively call them Laborials (I just accidentally hit the ‘v’ instead of the ‘c’ - maybe there’s something in that - Lavorials?).
When asked to explain Australian politics overseas, I demonstrate the 2 major parties by marking the alleged centre on a table then overlapping my hands so that only my little fingers are free and allow the left little finger to just touch the centre line. I think that’s a pretty fair representation of the current situation. Rather than being a 2 party state reflecting differing philosophies, it’s down to just one main set of ideas with politicians fighting over which faces shall represent them in parliament. They don’t offer a real choice.Posted by on 17/07/07 at 10:25 PMThe suggestion in 7# that the Libs remaining pro-mill is based on electoral calculations for the northern electorates would seem to undermine the statement that the Libs are not going to ‘play politics’ on the pulp mill. My view is that politicians saying they’re ‘not playing politics’ is akin to a cricketer saying he’s not playing cricket.
However the fact that that the electorate of Braddon would appear to be a more suitable location for the pulp mill on air quality and water effluent grounds has already been identified by Julian Green and Dr Raverty. By failing to concurrently assess the suitability of a alternative location, Gunns could be considered to have breached the guidelines assessment process which presumes a comparative site assessment at several points. While Gunns appears to have ruled out Hampshire, the magnitude of the private economic impacts of this election should have been made clear through the RPDC process so that they could be compared to the public economic, health and environmental impacts associated with the Tamar.
From an electoral and rational economic perspective the Liberals should not be ‘anti-pulp mill’, instead they should be supporting one that follows the process, meets the guidelines and has broad community support. Such a mill could be built in Braddon, winning votes in both Braddon and Bass.
I have heard some suggestions that due to its altitude the site in Hampshire is unsuitable. However this should not preclude an open minded assessment of other potential locations. A coastal location has the advantage of reducing shipment costs, as well as bringing in each element of the pulp mill as a pre-constructed unit. Woodside undertook significant work on the feasibility of a ship or concrete barge mounted LNG plant. Similarly, constructing each section of a pulp mill on concrete barges in Java or Singapore, transporting them to an appropriate location near Burnie and delivering chips to the plant by rail would address most of the community issues associated with the pulp mill (barring the forest themselves). The latter issue would also be assisted (at least in the minds of financiers) because such a mill would be well position to import chips from South America or mainland Australia to ensure supply.
An additional extension would be looking at an integrated fuels plant which uses the black-liquor byproduct to create a vehicle fuel rather than burning it for power. This approach is a key part of Sweden’s plan to address ‘Peak Oil’, and with Australian federal support, is something that any new pulp mill should be seriously looking at.
Overall the problem is that Gunns approach is too rushed. A billion dollar project should be treated carefully, assessing each issue, determining the overall best solution and being willing to go back to the drawing board if something isn’t working. Australia has had many massive resource projects, those that were considered carefully often went well, while those that were rushed often turned out to be disasters or have massive cost overrunes.. Anaconda Nickel, BHP Hot Briquette Iron, Laminaria.
This is not the last chance saloon.
Tasmania has been approached about a pulp mill every decade or so. By delaying, the trees continue to grow. While Gunns claims that delays cost them money, this does not justify going with a bad plan. Woodside and Shell spent $100 million assessing a particualr concept for the Sunrise-Troubadour fields in the Timor Sea before putting the entire project on ice for a few more years. That shows disciplined decision making.
Therefore it is not a question of the Liberals joining the anti-pulp mill camp, but standing up for good pulp mills and not allowing bad ones.
This will require courage and a willingness to raise the intellectual tenor of the argument beyond the simple yes or no, but in the end it is the duty of the Opposition and would pay electoral dividends.
It is also more likely to result in a new pulp mill actually being built.
Posted by on 18/07/07 at 11:53 AMTHE TASMANIAN LIBS sold out the day they excepted money from gunns,they now cannot speak out for tasmanians FOR FEAR OF THE GRUMPY ONE,exclusive bretheren etc,who call the shots.
Posted by on 18/07/07 at 02:14 PMAlex Wadsley said: “..However the fact that that the electorate of Braddon would appear to be a more suitable location for the pulp mill on air quality and water effluent grounds has already been identified by Julian Green and Dr Raverty. By failing to concurrently assess the suitability of a alternative location..”
I’m not sure why you’re saying this, Alex. Are you looking for a secure career in the public service?
The electorate of Braddon is inundated by smoke from forest-rape corporations’ temperate rainforest and monoculture burnoofs every Autumn. It happens in Spring as well. ‘air quality’???
Did you know that there’s a suppressed branch of economics entitled ‘ecological economics’?? This branch has evolved because “a number of economists today are aware that the results of their science are more or less at variance with concrete fact.."[’The Development of Ecological Economics’]
Here are some inconvenient facts:
- We don’t have the physical resources to support the CURRENT consumption of forests and plantations let alone expand it;- The world has a severe oil shortage. That’s why we have a war in Iraq. That’s why the war could expand to Iran, although probably not as there isn’t enough oil to continue the existing war in Iraq.
- An industrial pulp mill (and the plantation base that goes with it) is dependent on the continuing free-flow of oil and rising consumption levels. Neither are going to happen no matter how much these greedy bastards want it to.
Because we have governments that don’t acknowledge these stark facts then ‘Government will have to be rebuilt’, James Galbraith. 17th July 2007
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2007/07/government-will.htmlPosted by on 19/07/07 at 12:21 PMBrenda,
Your post above in response to Alex’s comments that Braddon / the North West is a more suitable location for the pulp mill than the Tamar does not address his point at all.
Instead, you’re simply ranting again against industrial developments, forest practices, and the failure of governments to see things your way.
Not every thread on here has to become a chance for you to advance your philosophies.
A pulp mill at Hampshire would be more likely to overcome the number one obstacle to a pulp mill in Tasmania - public opposition.
Alex is also spot on with this comment . . .
`The suggestion in 7# that the Libs remaining pro-mill is based on electoral calculations for the northern electorates would seem to undermine the statement that the Libs are not going to ‘play politics’ on the pulp mill. My view is that politicians saying they’re ‘not playing politics’ is akin to a cricketer saying he’s not playing cricket.’
I totally agree politicians play politics - all of them do. And anyone who argues one party does less than another is either ignorant or suffering from political bias.
The Libs support the mill because they believe it is in their political interests to do so.
Obviously many of here believe otherwise . . . I’ve even seen claims that their majority public opposition to the mill in Tasmania.
There are two problems with that - one, would those people who don’t support a mill vote for the Libs (rather than the Greens or Labor) if the party was to oppose the mill, and two, would the Libs gain more votes from opposing the mill than they would lose from their traditional support base.
Oh, and all this nonsense about the Libs taking money from Gunns is just that, the Lib members don’t care where they get their money - they only want to win government. It’s not like Gunns is handing over a million a year, or handing donations to individual MHAs.
Posted by on 19/07/07 at 04:05 PM‘Anonymous because he’s not really committed’ said: “A pulp mill at Hampshire would be more likely to overcome the number one obstacle to a pulp mill in Tasmania - public opposition...”
Think again, baby.
““The loss of production capacity in Iraq and Venezuela combined with increased production to meet growing international demand led to the erosion of excess oil production capacity. In mid 2002, there was over 6 million barrels per day of excess production capacity, but by mid 2003 the excess was below 2 million. During much of 2004 and 2005 the spare capacity to produce oil has been under one million barrels per day. A million barrels per day is not enough spare capacity to cover an interruption of supply from almost any OPEC producer. In a world that consumes over 80 million barrels per day of petroleum products that adds a significant risk premium to crude oil price and is largely responsible for prices in excess of $40 per barrel…”
From: Oil Price History and Analysis
James L. Williams
http://www.wtrg.com/prices.htmAnd July 2007 is as good time to keep a history timeline:
2007 – March India is colonizing itself
2007 March, China and US have cosmopolitan urban areas floating in a sea of rural discontent
2007– 2nd quarter. Corporate share buybacks behind drop in dividend increases.
July 2007 – Stockmarket Jitters
July 2007 Ex-RBA man warns of second Asian financial crisis
2007 – July US Road tolls being imposed
2007 – July US passes Bill to Withdraw Troops from Iraq Oil
2007 – July Bridgecorp placed into administration Australia
2007 – Hedge fund in Sydney puts limit on withdrawals
2007 – July Investors shun risky credit. Junk bonds mauled.
2007 – July Stockmarket melt UP
2007 – July Resource frenzy on stockmarket. Oil hits 11 month high – amid increased flow of fund money.
2007 – July Home loans on tap
2007 – July US Treasury Holds Disaster Drill
2007 – July Housing foreclosures jump to record high in the US
2007 – July Bush resists calls to tax hedge funds. Billion dollar pay days.
2007 – July Higher oil imports raise US trade deficit by 1.3 billion dollars in one month
2007 – US weakens anti-trust laws
2007 – July - rigged US election polls
2007 – July – Democrats vote for Iran War Amendment
2007 – 12th July – Iran demands payment for oil in yen, not dollars
[There goes the Yen carry trade.]Posted by on 19/07/07 at 09:07 PM15;
Can you explain how the libs current strategy is ever going to win them Government? I can see only one possibility which involves the pulp mill project collapsing and the libs puting the boot in on labours mismanagement. Given their tacit support to every government move that seems a sticky wicket. Can you expound on another?Posted by on 19/07/07 at 10:44 PMIf the libs had balls or brains thay could throw this turd in the fan and come out clean… Gunns must have photos of will and paul and a shaved billy goat with a party hat on…
Posted by on 20/07/07 at 08:36 AMBrenda re 14#:
The conclusion that a pulp mill would appear to be more prospective at Hampshire was included in the final conclusions of the Risk Audit report for the Tasmanian Greens back in September 2006 undertaken by myself and Prof Andrew Wadsley. It was included as part of the submission to the RPDC, but does not represent the position of that party.
This report also noted that using a pulp mill to produce vehicle fuel (a biorefinery) should be something used to address ‘Peak Oil’. I assume you’re multiple references to ‘Peak Oil’ linked oil events supports the development of sustainable alternatives?
The appropriate sizing for a plant will need to take into account the sustainability of plantation wood resources, which may require a smaller plant, or a location where chips can also be imported. As I understand it, old-growth native timber is an inferior input to pulp processing so shouldn’t be being used anyway (unless of course it’s being given away for free).
And actually, I am looking for a secure job in the public service. In my view the combination of scholarships and consultancy does not provide a sufficiently stable income stream to support a mortgage and a growing family. Alternative financially remunerative proposals are always welcome.
Re Steve/Anonymous: I think the question of whether Will’s small target strategy on the pulp mill will work may depend on who’s leading the Labor party at the next election. He certainly isn’t winning any votes, and the question of how many votes Labor is losing may follow Paul Lennon personally rather than the Labor party as a whole. Something for the resident psephologists to comment on?
Posted by on 20/07/07 at 01:02 PMSteve said: Can you explain how the libs current strategy is ever going to win them Government? I can see only one possibility which involves the pulp mill project collapsing and the libs puting the boot in on labours mismanagement. Given their tacit support to every government move that seems a sticky wicket. Can you expound on another?
I think the first point is that the Libs’ strategy on the pulp mill is not how they are going to win government. They would hope to win government on other issues. Health, for instance. (I’m surprised that the only issue that ever seems to get much of an airing here is related to forestry. Should this be called the tasforestrytimes.com?)
I think you’re spot on about their strategy with regard to the mill though - support it and attack the government for not doing enough to get it up, if it falls over attack the government for mismanagement.
Until the Libs are convinced that it is in their political interests to oppose the mill, then they won’t change their policy.
Posted by on 20/07/07 at 02:50 PM#15. ‘Oh, and all this nonsense about the Libs taking money from Gunns is just that, the Lib members don’t care where they get their money - they only want to win government. It’s not like Gunns is handing over a million a year, or handing donations to individual MHAs.’
All it means is that they can be bought cheaply!
As there is no discernable difference between their policies and those of the Labour Party, they will probably NEVER win government. While they still toady along with the government rhetoric that ‘Our future is based on a single PoSS’ instead of looking at some positive way to advance our future and preserve our heritage, then we may as well forget about them.
Maybe they should use their loooong holiday breaks to get out and find out what the people of Tasmania really want.Maybe they should try to be an Opposition!
Posted by Gerry Mander on 20/07/07 at 08:32 PMPeople need to realise that Tasmania is broke they need big business to fill the coffers up so people can survive.
People need to stop complaining and moaning about the mill and find ways of bringing in companies that don’t need raw materials and can advance Tasmania.
If that can be done then government wouldn’t need to turn to these companies for investment.
Posted by on 21/07/07 at 10:53 AMWhen my small grandchildren misbehave I tell them that if they’re not good Will Hodgman will become Premier. That scares them into behaving. Soon, however, they will be old enough to call my bluff.
The Liberal Party in Tasmania is like the ALP without Singh and Martin. Soon, it would seem, that will also describe the ALP in Tasmania.
All the Greens need to do is put up a few candidates of proven stupidity and get themselves accused of corruption and they’ll romp in. It would help if they took money from Gunns and Federal Hotels, and if they want to do that they might have to change a few policies. Well they’ve done that before (eg on drugs) so I’m fully expecting them to do so again.
I predict a future Tasmania with a Green government, two or three old-style pulp mills, no old growth forests left, pokies in every pub and in the few restaurants left, McDonalds and KFC on Salamanca, anti-gay laws reintroduced, run-down schools, all hospitals closed (after all it’s easy to send patients to Melbourne) and the place covered by plantations.
The only possible alternatives to this scenario would be a Liberal government with all of the above or a Labor government also with all of the above. And either of those would be marginally worse.
Posted by Justa Bloke on 21/07/07 at 04:04 PMMy psephelogical view is that there would be little mileage and considerable risk for the Liberals in outright opposition to the mill, or anything resembling such a stance. Not only have the Greens pretty much cornered the market in votes of those who care enough about the issue to change their vote over it, but any Tasmanian major party that allows itself to be seen as anti-development will be thrashed.
Also, complaints about the process irregularities involved would not have acheived much, because, as I have pointed out in previous analyses, Tasmanians generally do not care about process issues so long as there is the appearance of something being done in a pro-development direction. This appearance need not correspond with reality.
The line being taken by Richard Herr surprises me a little, because although entrenched oppositional behaviour (opposition to practically everything for opposition’s sake) is a natural consequence of a two-party system, it is frequently argued to be as much a progress-retarding publicity-driven pathology of such systems as a functional feature. Actually in particular contexts it can be either, or both at once. It is also surprising to now see the same call for normal Opposition-type behaviour coming from some of the same people who normally support a break from the conventions of the two-party system. Or at least, it would be if that level of inconsistency was not so common in Tasmanian political debate.
As one whose economic leanings, when it comes to support for private enterprise, are more libertarian than corporatist, I would have hoped that there would be votes for the Liberals in opposing the spending of public money on the assessment process for a private profit project. However my psephelogical view is that that too has little bearing on the public’s willingness to support the parties.
Psephelogically speaking I suspect the best thing the Liberals can do on the issue is be generally supportive while raising some ambiguous doubts without knocking too obviously, and that way if the project falls over they will then be in a position to capitalise by saying “we told you so” and point out how they would have (supposedly) been far more gung-ho and effective.
In his speech at the pro-development rally in Launceston, Will Hodgman did attempt to distance himself from the Lennon government’s handling of the mill, by criticising time taken in the approval process. Of course, if the mill is a success there is little way the Liberals can make any capital out of it at all.Disclaimer: all posts I make to this board represent my own views only and not those of any other entity.
Posted by on 21/07/07 at 09:33 PMKevin Bonham said: “The line being taken by Richard Herr surprises me a little, because although entrenched oppositional behaviour (opposition to practically everything for opposition’s sake) is a natural consequence of a two-party system, it is frequently argued to be as much a progress-retarding publicity-driven pathology of such systems as a functional feature. .”
Actually secret mates’ deals are the most prominent feature of the two party system. Rigged elections. Rigged election rules. Incessant spin and media manipulation. That’s what sustains a social system based on a small ruling class exploiting the people and the land to death.
Richard Herr’s article just can’t be taken seriously.
Posted by on 22/07/07 at 12:06 AMAlex Wadsley said: “And actually, I am looking for a secure job in the public service. In my view the combination of scholarships and consultancy does not provide a sufficiently stable income stream to support a mortgage and a growing family. Alternative financially remunerative proposals are always welcome...”
Alex, when the bank comes to claim your house because you’ve lost your income stream you and your family can come and stay here at our place. That would give you folks time to build a cheaper house on a block of land freed up by a genuinely representative type of government. (After all, we’ve lost about 10% or more of Tasmania through government organised theft.)
There are going to be lots of families in such a position soon. This could be a perfect opportunity to move completely away from a social system based on exploitation of people and the environment. We could help each other out. Live cooperatively. We could save the planet just in time.
On the other hand (with respect to the banks), they are broke also. A perfect opportunity to nationalise them and turn their operations to the benefit of ordinary folks for once. Remember our government Commonwealth bank? Remember our government insurance schemes? Remember when the Tasmanian government operated our railways? This evolved as a result of the experience of the great depression of the 1930s when Australians saw exactly what blood-sucking creatures private corporations are.
Check out just one of the corporate scams.
Options Backdating: A Primer, How Markets Work
Part I of A NERA Insights Series
By Dr. Sunil Panikkath, Matthew Evans, Dr. Patrick Conroy, Erik Stettler, and Nathan Saperia
5th October 2006
from [PUB_Backdating_Part_1_Primer_SEC1381_final.pdf]Posted by on 22/07/07 at 12:28 AMBrenda, once again your #25 shows your well-established inability to address the point, and your (wilful?) lack of attention as you dash off on irrelevant pet tangents. Not only was there no article by Richard Herr (he was quoted in part of an article by Sue Neales) but also my #24 did not engage with the question that you raise about what is the *most* prominent feature of the two-party system, so your “Actually,”, as if you are correcting me, is incorrect. (Also, having claimed to have revealed what is “Actually ... the most prominent feature”, you then go on to list four, but I shall leave this mystery to qualified mathematicians.)
What I sought to discuss was simply the question of whether opposition to more or less everything is a functional aspect of the two-party system or not - not whether it is or isn’t its most prominent defect. Some of the defects you refer to are actually more common in systems dominated by a single ruler or party, while others can be found in pretty much any system, not as a consequence of that system but as a consequence of the nature of politics generally.
Posted by on 22/07/07 at 02:52 PM#24, it is not inconsistent to support a move away from the traditional 2 party system and to expect the leader of the main opposition party to ask some tough questions of the Government. I would advocate an approach where opposition is legitimate and not just for opposition’s sake. Governments should be held to account where their actions are questionable and they should be supported where they are doing good. A genuine multi-party system (or a parliament with a large number of independents) has greater potential for achieving this than just two near identical outfits fighting over the same turf.
Posted by on 22/07/07 at 09:25 PM24; I just love “process irregularities”. I suppose inviting a private company in to help draft legislation affecting them is “irregular”.
I would have thought it “irregular” enough for the opposition to have, sort of, well, just mentioned it in passing?!Posted by on 23/07/07 at 12:53 PMBrenda, - Thanks for the offer. At present we own the land, so it is only the construction to finance, and we’d be taking care not to over-leverage.
Dr K - Thankyou for contributing. Your view seems to suggest that the winning strategy lies in out ‘pro-development’ing the other side - so Will Hodgman needs to stand on the streets of Launceston with a pair of boxing gloves on?
Is it right to say that you see no constituency for ‘good governance pro-development’ or ‘balanced development’, only ‘development at all costs’?
While this may have been the case for Tasmania 25 years ago, I don’t quite see it now. Else there would no need to be undertaking maneuvres like the pulling of the Ralph’s Bay development or resolving Recherche Bay just before the last election, which probably saved Paula Wriedt.
One can go too far on the green pendulum, particularly if it is poorly managed, as the launch of Latham ‘s forest policy was, but centrism would still appear to dominate taking an extreme position on either development or conservation.
The problem seems to be articulating what centrism actually means on a particular environmental issue. (Contrast Howard’s Forest Policy last election (winner) and the climate change policy for this election (looser))
Posted by on 23/07/07 at 05:46 PMRe #28, I thought Herr’s comments went rather further than just expecting “some tough questions” to be asked. He said “The reason we have an adversarial parliament is so that there is *always* another side of the story told, another position put and the public interest defended.” (my emphasis).
Posted by on 23/07/07 at 07:19 PMWhen we conducted a community survey to establish the impacts of a typical ECF pulp mill in the Tamar, we found that agriculture, tourism, recreation, fishing, fine foods and wine and organic foods were all potentially at risk. When we looked at employment figures for those industries (ABS etc) we noted over 50,000 jobs created by those industries.
Politically it doesn’t look all that smart to support a tiny but noisy minority in the logging industry (several thousand) versus 10 times that number placed under threat by loggers.
The way this has all been done is to simply pretend that the impacts on country areas, fishing grounds and tourism just do not exist (apparently a standard Lennon strategy).
It’s hard to see what the Libs reasoning could be for abandoning so many of their own rural constituents. If farms continue to be taken over, if the mill stinks like most others do and if tourism etc are as impacted as many forecast, then the liberals will have cut their own throats in many ways.
How do these numbers stack up to you Dr Kev?
Posted by on 23/07/07 at 11:10 PM#31, actually, my response wasn’t in regards to Richard Herr’s comments but rather to your suggestion later in the paragraph that those of us who see some future beyond the 2 party system are necessarily inconsistent in expecting some form “oppositional behaviour” from the major opposition party.
It is possible to support cooperation within the parliament whilst at the same time expecting the leadership to be held to account for their actions.Posted by on 24/07/07 at 11:57 PMSteve, all I was doing there was noting that whether the opposition mentioned it in passing or not, making a big deal of the process issue was not that likely to have much impact on voters.
Alex - good question re the boxing gloves but I think the ideal strategy is for the Liberals to be in an ambiguous position where they can later pretend either that they had the boxing gloves on, or that they had secret doubts about the thing.
People who follow Tasmanian development issues tend to be quite polarised. Those with pro-development leanings don’t care how developments are built so long as they are, and those with anti-development leanings don’t care how developments are stopped so long as they are. The genuine fence-sitters who are passionately interested but whose support depends on particular issues of profit or impact are pretty rare in my opinion.
“Balanced development” is a catch-all cliche I got sick of during the late 1980s cable car debates (when the cliche was mainly used by developers and their sycophants!) and have never liked since.
Resolving Recherche Bay probably cut the Green vote slightly without affecting the outcome of any seat. I doubt that it made any difference to Paula Wriedt’s election given that she beat a Liberal not a Green and since the margin was not as close as it looked like being (in the end she won by 1032 votes - fairly close, but not precarious). Pulling Ralph’s Bay was probably a bigger factor, but one that would have been more to do with fear of a local NIMBY backlash than with fear of being seen to have a particularly gung-ho position across that electorate in general.
Normally you would be absolutely right that the correct strategy for the centre party is to take a centrist position and try to squeeze the others onto a wing. But there are a number of complicating factors when it comes to development attitudes in Tasmania. Firstly, the spread of attitudes might not be a normal distribution, but might be two-humped, in which case Labor aims to grab as much as it can of the pro-development hump (the larger one anyway, at least in terms of willingness to vote based on it) rather than sit in the centre and let the Liberals get too much of it. Secondly, of those voters whose attitudes on development issues are centrist, many may have non-environmental reasons for strongly preferring Labor to either Green or Liberal, so there may not be that many loose votes in the centre of the debate for the Greens or Liberals to grab.
Mike: community surveys of any large development are bound to detect all sorts of things as being considered “at risk” by some. But unless you’re a scare-campaigner in the John Howard league, that won’t determine voting behaviour - only bad outcomes (or a perception of them) will, and most of the feared bad outcomes of developments don’t actually happen, or else enough people get distracted by the benefits that they don’t notice.
However, let’s assume the mill is built and a significant number of “rural constituents” are disadvantaged and trace their anger back to the mill, which both major parties supported. They’re hardly going to switch from Liberal to Labor over it, and they’re not that likely to go from the Liberals to the Greens, so are they really going to change their vote? Most likely they would say their party was trying to do the right thing but stuffed it up, and forgive it. The Liberal vote is so low that those left still voting for them must be quite loyal by now.
By the way, I noticed some interesting things in the recent EMRS poll, concerning drift in voting intention between federal elections. It showed the Greens vote staying steady, but far more people who voted Green last time drifting to other parties than the other way round. My suspicion about this is that the Green vote depends on a constant influx of first-time voters, and as people get older they are more likely to move away from supporting the party and less likely to switch to it. But perhaps I am just being autobiographical here. :)
Posted by on 25/07/07 at 12:51 AM#31, actually, my response wasn’t in regards to Richard Herr’s comments but rather to your suggestion later in the paragraph that those of us who see some future beyond the 2 party system are necessarily inconsistent in expecting some form of “oppositional behaviour” from the major opposition party.
It is possible to support cooperation within the parliament whilst at the same time expecting the leadership to be held to account for their actions.Posted by on 25/07/07 at 05:27 AMRe #35, one person’s rampant obstructionism is another person’s holding the government to account. If you support the idea of parties working together some of the time then it’s inevitable that at some stage they will work together on something you wish they were opposed on. Likewise on the issues where they worked together and you wanted them to, somebody else might wish they were opposed.
Ultimately, the effective use of opposition to hold the government accountable depends on picking which battles you can win in the minds of the public. The Opposition doesn’t have any real power to obstruct, so it is only the threat of it becoming preferred to the Government by voters that gives it any real leverage at all.
Posted by on 25/07/07 at 07:29 PMAfter reading all the guff here which in a nutshell regards regards both parties being (more or less) one and the same, perhaps an impasse would be for Tasmanians en mass to vote green in order to get rid of that particular problem as lets face it ! they can’t do any worse ! however i suspect that the long term angst felt for them due to some of their past folly will tell against them.
d.d.Posted by on 26/07/07 at 02:15 AM36; DKB, you have gone right around in a circle with this discussion. The point is that if the Libs are not capable of winning the battle in the minds of the public with the fodder they have been handed recently, they might as well give up and go home. The fact that they haven’t even tried questions the whole reason why they are there. This issue goes well beyond a forestry arguement, despite mill proponents trying to keep it at a “greeny v the rest of the world” level.
I agree that sometimes the parties pull together but that doesn’t mean the governbent (whoops, typo but I like it so it stays!) shouldn’t be held to account for extremely dubious processes.Posted by on 26/07/07 at 11:05 AMre: 34 Dr K.
I think I can agree with your logical analysis, although the reactive strategy of the Liberals you identify would seem to confirm the difficulty in winning government given the electoral pole vault required. If anything it would seem to confirm the effectiveness of the Labor strategy as having taken the centre and now pushed the Greens and Libs into different opposing wings.
While the ‘centre’ has drifted to the right under Lennon and particularly on the pulp mill issue itself, this has reinforced the identity crisis faced by the Libs on differentiation and the crisis for the Greens as to whether they are a party of the left or a party of the centre. While Lennon’s bumbling would appear to create opportunities for the Libs, this may simply be rectified by Labor taking a new leader to the next election who moves back to the centre.
Following the two-humped distribution theory, this would seem to suggest that if the Greens can successfully move further to the centre, they could dominate that hump. This ofcourse requires effectively overcoming the concerted negative positioning campaigns undertaken by the other parties that were fairly effective at the last election. If the relative size of humps is correct and constant, this never leads to government.
Following ‘conventional wisdom’ there appears no easy path for the Libs back to government, perhaps this is therefore a return to the long-period prior to the 1980s when Labor was the only party of government in Tasmania, though not necessarily a good one.
Agree that ‘balanced development’ is a cliche, but it is the concept that everybody starts with, until push comes to shove and it is abandoned in favor of the polarising ‘jobs OR the environment’. Given the implications of demographic change on the labour market and health costs, only an economic fool would choose the former.
Posted by on 26/07/07 at 01:56 PMNot at all Steve; the “battle” is far more difficult to win than you suggest because of the very obvious dangers of wedge politics from the Government, and the fact that a third party (the Greens) already soaks up so much of the protest vote on this sort of issue. The Liberals need to consider their handling of it very carefully indeed.
Of course, many people think that concern about the pulp mill is widespread and that it is far more than just another green issue, mainly because virtually everyone they know expresses concern. However, much the same line has appeared before in other issues (particularly old-growth logging) without translating into all that many votes. This is indeed more than just another forests issue because it has a strong NIMBY element and also because nthere are process concerns which may bother isolated pockets of intelligentsia, but on the whole its potential impact on voter behaviour is probably being wildly exaggerated, in common with virtually every other environmental issue in this state since about 1990.
The view was put to me today that the Liberals should not have given the issue even the oxygen of a prominent appearance of support - that Will Hodgman should not have addressed the rally and that the Liberals should have simply given lip-service style support and moved on where they could to other issues. This may well be the case.
I notice that, as usual, those who wish the Libs would take a specific stance are also those who are most adamant that that specific stance would work, when really the Liberals are in a most unenviable position whenever the Government gets attention on an issue like this - just like Labor federally has little it can do when the Coalition has found some issue on which to engage its usual terror-phobia mode, except toe the line and hope that issue goes away soon.
Posted by on 26/07/07 at 08:53 PM40,For heavens sake Kevin, please stop patronising. Of course the battle is not easily won, battles rarely are! The point is simply that given the ammunition currently available over “process irregularities” the opposition ought to be able to make hay. I’m by no means assured that attempting to hold the government to account would work but I’m totally assured that standing by will not work.
Our political system is essentially adversarial.It’s like a battle or chess game, the opposition try a feint here, a little push here; suddenly they find a weakness (or get the negatives!) and bingo, a minister resigns. If the dear departed’s revered leader had been foolish enough to offer unqualified support the week before, and it’s a slow news week, it’s possible for the opposition to get the upper hand. Short of the negatives actually being published that’s how oppositions claw their way back into the limelight. It’s not nice work but someone’s got to do it and considering they don’t actually do anything else they are well paid for it. The current lot simply aren’t doing it so why are we paying them!Posted by on 26/07/07 at 11:17 PMThis thread seems to be more of an indictment of the voters than the government.
What does it take for the average voter to sit up and take notice of what is happening around him? Mostly it is a case of when pushed, grumble and forget.
The government knows this, of course, and smuggly issues soothing propaganda to cover its assaults on their reason, their property and their rights. They hide their agendas under weasel words in the sure knowledge that people are either too apathetic, too lazy, short memoried or incapable of analysis themselves, and in the final issue, they will still elect the ‘devil they know’.
So to change government it either needs a pretty serious event to stir them or long term tedium to set in where they start to accept the opposition rhetoric of ‘Time for a change’. Not that the opposition offers anything different or better.Different saddle, same donkey. It is usually the tired old chestnuts of Health Care, Education and the Aged. To this end they go round kissing babies, appearing in schools and old age homes, making sure, where possible, to avoid any contentious issues and attack the opposition. Their campaigns are controlled by behind-the-scenes backers and caucases and their speeches written by a host of spin doctors. The aim is to get elected at any cost, and for this they will chuck public money around in large doses with no mention of where it is coming from or who pays and make promises they have no intention of keeping.
Is it any wonder they public tends to take a jauniced view of all this, especially when there is no discernable difference between the major parties.
It is such a pity really, because one day they will look back on this destroyed island and think of what might have been. It may then dawn on them that they have been sold out for a mess of pottage, when they see the wealth that was once here has headed offshore to the large industrial corporations and banks, and we have been left with the embers. Our forests gone, our farms destroyed, the image of clean and green tarnished forever, our health deteriorating, small towns and villages turned to mere ghosts and the tourists heading off elsewhere. The original problems will still be there.
Fat-cat Gunns will have a new board of directors, possibly containing three or more ex-premiers, and they will still be telling the public that’You never had it so good’ and that their future still depends on the profits of this one blood-sucking company.The floating voters will still hold the key and nothing will have changed.
Oh well, c’est la guerre!
Posted by Gerry Mander on 27/07/07 at 07:59 PMFunny how I so often get people of limited debating skills accusing me of being “patronising” or “condescending” online, when actually both these things involve an attitude of feigned equality, and I’m the last person in the world to fake an equal standing with someone who cannot argue a convincing case.
If “process irregularities” were enough for the opposition to make hay, they would have made fields of it at the last election, over such issues as the Butler payout for instance. They didn’t. I have made the point over and over and both the Gray era and the last election proved it: generally, Tasmanians do not care about process.
And please spare me the cliched chess analogy. I suspect that I know rather more about the game than you and am hence in a much better position to say what is like it and what isn’t. :)
Posted by on 27/07/07 at 09:38 PM43; I make no claims to possessing superior debating skills. I have spent my life aquiring skills in more renumerative areas but even someone of my limited intelligence can be offended by a patronising attitude. I’ve always been suspicious of someone who feels it necessary to use their academic qualifications in this type of forum and I’m afraid you’ve just confirmed these suspicions.
Please could you you clarify the exact basis for your assumption of superiority (apart from a Phd, which, if you actually have one, you know just how much they’re worth!). I would also be interested to know how you manage to know that your chess knowledge is superior to mine, I’ve played a few games over the years at various levels but I don’t recall your name.
I don’t actually like to reply to someone in this vein but it appears to me that you have gone out of your way to be offensive. It would be a more productive thing for you spend the effort promoting your view point which still seems to rest upon “I say it, so it must be”.Posted by on 29/07/07 at 09:02 PM(44)
WELL THATS EASILY FIXED , I PERSONALLY WOULDN,T KNOW A CHESS PIECE FROM MY ARSE , BUT IF YOU TWO GIANTS OF INTELLECT WAN,T TO PROVE YOUR PROWESS WITH THE BOARD ! THEN, DO YOUR THANG ! FOR ALL TO SEE.
D.D.Posted by on 30/07/07 at 01:38 PMOK Steve, let’s start with the chess. I only said I *suspect* I know more about the game than you (not that I know it as you falsely claim, again showing your lack of debating skill), but if you are really a grandmaster in hiding then feel free to rock up to the Hobart International Chess Club and demonstrate your talents. Since you asked so nicely, you’re dealing with a twice Tasmanian champion, five times Tasmanian Open winner, vice-president of the Australian Chess Federation, secretary of the Tasmanian Chess Association, currently #2 in the state, chairman of the national selectors, working on the side as a junior tournament director - anything else I can help you with in that line? Want links with that, or just a cloth to wipe the egg off your face? Sheesh, how hard would it have been to find out much of this via Google? ;)
The basis of my superiority (not that I claim that I’m especially brilliant in this exchange, just that your efforts are quite pitiful) is that after dramatically oversimplifying the issue by suggesting it was a no-brainer, you started sooking about statements to the contrary being “patronising”. You didn’t bother considering whether your unsubstantiated rubbish about me going round in a circle, which came before the comments you got so snooty about, wasn’t actually a rather more blatant demonstration of lack of respect for the opposition than whatever you imagined when you complained about from me.
So your taking of offence is inconsistent - if you dish out dodgy criticisms without evidence for them, then whine about imagined insults, you should expect that I will flame you.You could also try getting a clue about the origin of the “Dr” handle instead of making false assumptions. What happened was that on the old TT site, many trolls who didn’t like my opinions made groundless personal attacks on my scientific credibility, so to punish them for their stupidity, once I acquired the title I used it in passing to annoy them. Many of them couldn’t deal with this and started calling me Mr Bonham, so when I came to the new site where I could have a single login for all posts, I included the Dr to perpetually remind them of their folly in doubting my expertise on issues I actually *am* an expert in (and was an expert in long before I wrote my favourite doorstop). It’s also to give them an incentive to clean up their act. Once again, any time the peanut gallery on this site can go six months without whinging about my use of the Dr title, I shall remove it from my username! And congratulations Steve, you are the latest in a long line of suckers who have let the side down by resetting the clock to zero!
Posted by on 31/07/07 at 02:15 AM(46)
so there we go ! he admits he uses the term Dr.to piss everyone off , just who does he think believes that frogshit ! his ego really leads him to believe he has the right, well this “sucker” as he refers to fellow debaters is not concerned that he makes a goose of himself so, mr,mr,mr,mr,mr,mr,.mr,mr,mr,mr, at 6 months a throw
theres 5 years worth for him.
sad,sad,sad.
d.d.Posted by on 01/08/07 at 11:52 PMSorry for the delay responding, months end’s always a bit hectic for me and the home computer stays firmly off!
46, Kevin, don’t you think you’re being a teeny bit silly. Your chess credentials are very impressive and I’m sure you’re very proud of them. I most certainly would have been in my chess playing years. My point remains though that, to the best of my knowledge, we have never met so no matter your prowess at the game I can’t understand how you feel qualified to make any assumption (or suspicion of an assumption!) as to an unknown persons knowledge of the game, especially in a political discussion.
As for the rest of it, well… I actually read your reply last night but was unable to reply because we had guests for dinner. Any farmers out there can thank us for the rain as it always rains when we have visitors from the north island. Anyway, one of my guests has a Phd and I asked the inevitable question as to why he didn’t use the title apart from professionaly. His reply was that he didn’t want to be regarded as an arrogant prat. Of course that was the right answer from my point of view so I read out your latest reply to a table full of people who found it even more amusing than I had. The bit that was especially entertaining was how you punish people by using your title.
Kevin, mate, please feel free to continue using your title. Your knowledge of land snails earned it for you and you should wear it with pride. I can take the punishment! There may be a few months of waking up in the night thinking “he’s still Dr Kev” and the nightmares in which you gain a double doctorate and it’s Dr Dr Kev, but I’ll handle it! In fact, if the peanut gallery don’t oblige and the 26th week is approaching, please feel free to drop me a line and I’ll submit a suitable remark, or perhaps the joke about the difference between god and a doctor. I’ll think of something!
All humour aside the fact remains that you have gone out of your way to make an unprovoked attack on me. This thread was meant to be about the Liberals and you turned it into an attack on myself for presuming to request you toned down the patronising delivery of your argument. I quite genuinely endeavour to word my posts to give offence to no one. Requesting you to stop being patronising is perhaps not a good example of this but I didn’t realise I was dealing with such a fragile ego. It was actually a genuine request. Condescending verbosity is offensive to others and devalues your argument.
Anyway the problem is easily solved as I’m simply going to ignore any posts from you in the future. I’m on this site for genuine discussion, not some gladatorial debate with someone whose sole intent appears to be the advancement of his own ego, preferably at someone else’s expense. Perhaps they could give you your own special page; Bonhams Bonhomie or some such thing!
By the way don’t bother pointing out any spelling or gramatical errors in my post as I’m a bit hung over this morning and just don’t care!Posted by on 02/08/07 at 01:52 PM(48)
Well said ! Steve, i stopped responding to him “personally” and his patronising crap a long way back, nevertheless it will not stop him from unloading on new , and less informed folk .
Quite sad really because i think somewhere in there resides a brain .
d.d.Posted by on 04/08/07 at 01:45 AMSorry Don, doesn’t work like that, but you did at least reset the clock again on 1/08, a few days later than Steve.
Steve, once again all I voiced was a *suspicion* that I would have more than a clue about chess than you, and the reason it is *not* silly is that moving in the circles inhabited by strong-ish players, I know that virtually all such players have a cynicism about lame chess analogies that causes them to refrain from employing them. Such cliches are virtually invariably used by those who are not specialists at the game - journalists, commentators about other sports, and other rank populist patzers.
I couldn’t care less whether dimwits who don’t bother following the history behind my use of “Dr” are stupid enough to regard me as an “arrogant prat”. I am not interested in the views of such lightweights, nor in your harmless little stories about cliched lamers who allegedly inhabit your dreary little leftist dinner table. (They can laugh all they like, if they exist, but they would have a much harder time if they tried to defend their prejudices against me in debate on this site.) Also, I have pointed out that not all connotations of that lame and harmless cliche “arrogant” are so negative after all.
Your claim that my alleged attack was “unprovoked” is unsubstantiated drivel as I have already outlined how you went off the rails of reasonable debate - you have not responded to that argument.
That you stereotype me as the sort who would engage in spelling/grammar flames without like provocation further shows you have no clue what is going on here.Your being hung over is no excuse for ineptness, as I can write posts with very few typos in any kind of state you care to mention (except for actually asleep/unconscious as opposed to more or less so).
I suspect your promise to put me on ignore will be as much of a flop as that of many others who have said they will never respond to me again. In any case, I’ll try to hold you to it - though given that you are just a first name and an email address I’m sure you’ll resume combat under another alias when you realise the folly of your ways. Almost all of them do.
Remaining unsubstantiated drivel ignored.
Posted by on 04/08/07 at 06:28 AM
