So, what are we to make of this … Robin Gray is on the board of Gunns, he is a former Liberal Premier whose 1980s majority government decimated the state’s finances …
For all the alarmist scaremongering about the dangers of minority government it is a matter of undisputed historical record that the worst government in Tasmania’s post-war history was Robin Gray’s majority Liberal Government — which left the state financially ruined and economically unprepared to take advantage of the most sustained boom in post-war history; while the other states prospered Tasmania languished in recession until 2001.
Earlier:
The anti-Green bandwagon
Big End of Town Muscle
The Big End of Town …
THE HAG: … which raises a question relating to the ethics code of Public Relations Institute of Australia which includes this ethical demand:
Members shall be prepared to identify the source of funding of any public communication they initiate or for which they act as a conduit.
So, under that demand shouldn’t the public be made aware exactly who was behind, Tasmanians For a Better Future, which until Michael Kent admitted his involvement was fronted only by the public relations company, Corporate Communications, with ads authorised by Tony Harrison?
A little history:
The Rape of Tasmania
The Emperor’s new clothes
Brown on Labor and the Greens
Elizabeth
March 21, 2006 at 10:32
Who cares what Sue Napier thinks. Having read the Bob Cheek bio, her true colours were revealled to all.
Cassy O'Connor
March 21, 2006 at 15:50
Classic Elizabeth – attack the messenger to again reveal your true colours and ignore the importance of the message.
Now the election is over you can again hide behind your cloak of murky colours and make puerile pontifications.
Sigh …
lhayward
March 22, 2006 at 06:42
Its reasuring that the integrity of Tasmanian democracy is still in the hands of Robin, whose credentials for this job were established by the Rouse inquiry.
It’s equally comforting that the Libs are willing to subordinate their own political interests to those of Gunns’.
That Tasmanians of both major parties voted overwhelmingly to continue being financial carers for the Big Chipper is a decisive blow to those still trying to push the evolution theory.
John Hayward
Elizabeth
March 22, 2006 at 07:54
When did Napier become the heroine of the Greens?
Cassy O'Connor
March 22, 2006 at 10:00
The much loved heroines of the Tasmanian Greens are Peg Putt, Christine Milne and Di Hollister.
Also, every woman who voted Green for her childrens’ future; and every woman who – paid or unpaid – devotes countless hours to the Greens’ relentless efforts to secure a more sensible, sustainable future.
You, Elizabeth, involve yourself in truly spiteful, lowest common denominator debate. Your grammar and spelling are dreadful, and you evade the heart of important issues.
The web has given you a vehicle you would not have secured otherwise on talent alone. The convenient cloak of anonymity means you don’t have to get up there, say what you believe and cop the consequences – good or bad. It takes a certain lack of courage.
Whoever you are, I don’t like what you represent.
Justa Bloke
March 22, 2006 at 11:12
I still can’t work out why we bother holding elections in Tassie.
It would save millions if we just let the Gunns board run everything, and nothing would change.
They might even run the hospitals more efficiently
The only effective opposition has always come from outside the whole parliamentary sham.
Maybe the Exclusive Brethren have a point.
ted sands
August 30, 2007 at 02:21
A sad day for launceston and the tamar valley a majority decision by so called informed politicians who have placed this state in jeopardy. This is nothing more than an endorsement of a flawed product, the speech by mlc dean was appalling; full of dubious references, meaningless facts taken from wherever and delivered in a way that there was a get out of jail free in every paragraph, in other words, his delivery lacked conviction and substance.To be one of the six aldermen who denied the other five the right to hear an alternative view from dr raverty recently was appalling yet Mr dean was quite happy to hear from mr ormerod an drew in the presence of mr fletcher former mlc and a consultant to gunns If that is not a conflict of interest I dont know what was , absolutely gobsmacking behaviour.