I think the Greens have come a long way.

They really need to be “out there” getting their message across to the masses, so they are not seen as “out there” as painted by the LibLab tainters.

Some BIG advertising needs to be done, and I’m sure there are some cashed up people in the clean green arena that would come to the party to help them along.

As the show rolls on…....

I hope that the Greens do well at the election as well. John is right about the skills of our LibLab politicians. I agree that many of them would be unemployable in the real world.
We have a forest minister who was reportedly a telephone installer and not very good at that, we have a deputy premier who has never done an honest days work (unless you count being a government spin doctor) we have a transport minister who goes into brain fizzes, an ex premier and ex deputy premier who should be .... On the Lib side well there are again no stand outs, they just vote along with the Labs every time so can’t be worth a vote at all as they have nothing original to say.
We definitely need more Greens and we need a Hung Parliament. More of the same old one horse race that we have now will mean the total destruction of all that the people of Tasmania love about the place.

The Greens hold the only hope for Tasmania to move forward at a rate faster than a snail.

They might not be perfect, they don’t suit everyone’s taste, but they listen to the people and develop policies accordingly, and that is something that hasn’t happened for so long, some have forgotten that it can happen that way, rather than in “Bartlett” fashion - introduce a policy and judge it’s worth by the personal popularity rating. As a way to govern, that is appallingly bad, but as a reactionary Bartlett obviously knows no other.

I’m in absolute agreement with your splendidly perceptive, forthright evaluation, John.

Thanks for summing the situation so succinctly.

Prior to the 1998 reduction in the number of members the House of Assembly consisted of 35 members (seven per electorate) not 30 (six per electorate) as this article states.

The House had 30 members between 1906 and 1959.  The problem with having an even number of seats became particularly apparent in the 1955 and 1956 elections which both returned deadlocked Houses with 15 Labor and 15 Liberal despite Labor outpolling the Libs on primaries by 7.3 points and 6.7 points respectively and getting more than 50% of the primary vote each time.  As a result, the system was changed for the 1959 election.

To win majority government in the 30-seat system is quite difficult as a party needs to win four seats in at least one electorate, and the quota for doing so (including preferences) is 57.1%.  (Compare this to a 25 or 35 seat system where obtaining 50% including preferences in three electorates is usually sufficient). Had we been using the 30 seat system then the 2006 thrashing would most likely have resulted in a deadlocked parliament (15-10-5) while in the even more lopsided 2002 election Labor would probably have won the critical 16th seat (perhaps more), but even that isn’t certain.

The problem can be easily seen in the following scenario: suppose the Liberals poll 29 in an electorate and the Greens 14.  Now Labor can poll 56 and the seat still splits 3-2-1 despite Labor polling well over 50, almost double the vote of the main Opposition and 13 points more than Liberals and Greens combined. 

The 30-seat system is more a recipe for obstruction of the majority than a system of proportional representation and it is certainly best avoided.

A system with an even number of total seats (I think it was 28 seats = 4x7), in which the party receiving the greatest statewide popular vote would be “enabled to govern” in the event of a deadlock, was floated and rejected in the leadup to the 1998 changes, but it would have introduced an aspect of first-past-the-post counting into the system.

Yes yes!!! Give that man the job! What a breath of fresh air it would be and my goodness, don’t we need it!? The quality of the currently installed Greens is admirable and I often wonder how they tolerate the bunch of ning-nongs in the Lib/Lab camps. They do because they are driven by something more than ego. It’s called ‘integrity’ and I thank them for it. GO YOU GOOD GREENS!!!

The Greens need at least 13 seats otherwise the other parties can combine in a vote of no confidence or anyway can win any vote on matters they agree on (eg the pulp mill).  And there would still be the LC to deal with.

If the Greens looked like getting anything like 13 seats, the votes would have been counted by the cabin crew of Pork Chop Airlines.

By the time this sort of result was even able to be contemplated without belly-splitting mirth, the Greens would have transformed into a party acceptable to the Tasmanian electorate, in other words a bunch of corrupt and/or stupid lightweights.  History has shown that this is what Tasmanians (and not only Tasmanians) always choose to elect.

Use the election as a chance to publicise important issues; don’t get hung up on which pack of no-hopers wins.

Dear Kevin,
Thankyou for putting me straight.The point I suggest is not so much the numbers 30,35,40, but the lack of them which results in Ministers such as Bartlett and Giddings having a multiplicity of Portfolios of great individual complexity.
With the limited number of hours in a day the detail that needs to be absorbed to master each portfolio,especially with the talent available, remains outside the average persons grasp and comprehension.
The only way around this problem is to increase the size of Parliament and to improve the intellectual standing of candidates. This is your area of expertise not mine so over to you.

I think “yes” we should give this man the job…At least then we wouldn’t have to listen to any more of the self righteousnous from the lab/lib/gunns accord and the blatant corruption that goes with them.

Dave Groves is correct. The Greens, for all their good work and achievements, let themselves down in PR.
The ‘Green brand’ is largely misunderstood by the masses.

Other political and lobby groups have been aware of this for some time. Their representatives in Liberal and Labour, Independents and Forestry attend mundane primary school functions in order to sell their ‘product’. The Greens rarely attend.
It may be an ethical stand or a matter of workload priorities, but it does them no favours.

A strong solid impression on a young mind can last a lifetime.

Whist agreeing with John Hawkin’s analysis and admiring whatever positivism we can grip onto I suggest there’s one element in the Tasmanian electoral mentality he’s left out. That’s the simple and historically demonstrable fact the larger percentage of native born Tasmanians admire and respect thuggish behavior in politics.

Re Pete’s #2 and the telephone tech.  I believe his nickname was “Fudd”, as in Elmer.

Need I say more? ;-)

JV

If the strategy for reducing the size of parliament was to further the logging industry, it now seems to have failed. We are left with the pathetic situation of David Llewellyn begging the Japanese to help rape Tasmania, and them refusing on moral and environmental grounds. The Lib-Lab collusion in the gerrymander of our Hare-Clarke system has simply shifted decision-making outside of Tasmania.

By all means give Nick a job and perhaps some of his mates but give them power in Tassie, as an alternative to labour or liberal. No way !!!

While they may come from from an idealistic utopia, in a way, historically so do the other parties.

And guess what, if one takes the view that both labour and liberal are tainted by political thuggery, corruption from business interests, party faction fighting, towing the party line, not listening to the people. Well then sorry to be the party pooper, but in truth the Greens are little better. Look for instance what is occuring within the Wilderness Society.

Also and with respect to the ideals that some Greens hold, in truth, they don’t represent the majority of Tasmanian’s views, and so hence are not entitled to the keys of power. 

Does this mean that either Labour or Liberal represent the majority of Tasmanian’s interests, I would suggest that while they are more likely to get more votes, the answer is still no.  So where does it leave us ? 

I am not sure but I won’t be voting for any of party and suspect I will only vote for those candidates accross the board, who have a modicum of faith in. 

Increasing numbers of politicians is one thing, but in fact a wholesale reform of the political process in Tasmania is what actually is needed.

it might be well to point out that, not only do many current laborial politicians lack knowledge, skill or experience outside parliament in any other field of endeavour, a large slice of them have even managed to fail in the political arena. 

perhaps it’s worth reminding people that someone like rene hidding ~ who does have business experience outside parliament ~ was judged a failure as leader of the opposition by his own party and had to be replaced.

the current speaker of the house, after being given several ministeries in previous governments, was so inept that his own party shunted him off into his present position, out of harms way.

time and space prevent the naming of others.

If I have a criticism of Tasmanian Times it is that it allows the converted to preach to the converted.Amen.

Re #8 I agree that the small size of the Parliament is a problem - for the reasons stated and for others, including the lack of an effective backbench. 

Saying that is one thing and finding a solution with any chance of acceptance quite another.  There is a widespread belief that the total number of state politicians is high enough as it is, and hence any party going to the people with a promise to increase the number of politicians is an easy target for a scare campaign. 

The number of politicians in the Lower House could be easily increased without increasing the total number of politicians if the Legislative Council were to be abolished, and I fully support doing this.  However, the Legislative Council doesn’t, so my opinion is rather irrelevant.

In the event of a hung parliament it will be interesting to see if the Greens (who alone have nothing to lose from action on the issue) request reform of the size of the House as a condition for supporting one party or other.

all parties have publicly agreed that the number of representatives in the lower house should be returned to the 35.

the original reason for reducing it to 25 was to get rid of the greens.  the trouble is that the ostensible reasons (touted loudly to the public) for reducing it were the ever-popular “reducing costs” and “reducing the number of politicians.”

now, ironically, the labor and liberal parties are left with finding a NEW ostensible reason for raising it again.  they can’t very well say that the real reason is because lowering it led to increased costs and an incompetent parliament ~ no viable and critical government backbench; not enough government members to fill ministerial positions; the compensatory blowout in expensive the senior public service to fill the advisory roles… the list goes on.