Tasmanian Times

The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. No price is too high for the privilege of owning yourself. ~ Friedrich Nietzsche

The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. No price is too high for the privilege of owning yourself. ~ Friedrich Nietzsche

Deeper Throat

The elevation of mediocrity

Deeper Throat True tales from The Emperor’s Court …

Oh, I’m real all right, Mikey Lester … (This article by Deeper Throat proves that the writer is a hoax, Lennon’s Baby?; Comments on Lennon’s Baby?)

Michael Lester, former respected political journalist who reported the 1998 elevation of Jim Bacon to Emperor, then left to become Political Adviser to the Emperor, thus turning from the Fourth Estate which had nurtured him for the compromised confines of well-paid political power, a comparatively brief association which I for one regard as less than illustrious. Now he is a fulltime Labor-sympathetic gun-for-hire spinner.

Nothing wrong with that, of course. But I reckon there is a credibility gap in his pronouncements.

From my intimate knowledge of the inner workings of the Emperor’s Court I say this to those skeptics:

You have no idea of what went on behind the scenes, particularly the inner workings of Cabinet during the Emperor’s era.

An era which laid the groundwork for the elevation of back-stratching mediocrity, such as:

1: The Lovely Lara: Sold out the Left for a coveted Ministerial job and a tilt at the Dep’s job in the near future (not much show though).

2: Aird: Just a lap-dog. Loved trips to WA.

3: Dimwitted Jim Cox: Reads the Mercury from about the 4th last page on. Gets his advice from the Pokies.

4: The closet Lib, Steve Kons: (godfather to Steve Mav, political confidant to same).

5: Green: Just so he could watch him crash and burn.

6: Poor Brenton Best: Not cabinet, but Deputy Speaker with a few nice little perks.

All of the above are Lennon stooges rewarded for chameleon-like factional leanings.

Hence the dreadful electoral position the government now finds itself having to deal with.

Oh, and a little more about Evan’s elevation:

I wouldn’t mind betting that Evan Rolley was 2nd choice for DPAC Secretary. Rhys Edwards can see the writing on the wall and is too smart to get tarnished with the decaying Lennon government.

Author Credits: [show_post_categories parent="no" parentcategory="writers" show = "category" hyperlink="yes"]
13 Comments

13 Comments

  1. Charles and Claire Gilmour

    September 28, 2007 at 4:17 pm

    (11) A couple of quick lessons on fly fishing for you George.
    1. the bait needs to be a fresh well formed fly
    2. worms are illegal
    3. smelly putrefied green bait, won’t catch a thing
    4. you can’t use a crooked rod
    5. constantly used old lines are easily broken
    6. you have to cast a true line

    Practice can make perfect, but often, it’s simply ‘natural’ ability!

    Sorry can’t spend more time teaching you a lesson, going fishing!

  2. The Oracle

    September 28, 2007 at 2:05 pm

    I’m with ya George.

  3. George Harris

    September 28, 2007 at 2:05 am

    Well I’ll be gawd-dang! I wrote a response (post no. 2) that I thought would bring out all those bludging fart-sniffers by the dozen! What does it take to bait them? Do they think that by ignoring me that I will go away? or that I will stop trying to influence people (here and elsewhere) with a different point of view? Is anyone else sick of this site being so one-sided?
    Come on, where are you???

  4. Dr Kevin Bonham

    September 27, 2007 at 12:39 am

    Buck and Joan (#6), would you say the current Prime Minister of New Zealand is a poor quality pollie compared with ours? And would you say her nation is corrupt, let alone invariably so?

    Corruption can occur in any system and has little or nothing to do with the number of houses.

  5. Tony Saddington

    September 26, 2007 at 7:09 pm

    The legislative council, the house of review,cannot operate honestly as such in its current format.
    I agree with the Embergs that removing the upper house would be disasterous. It is however, in desperate need of reform. All members should be Independants, voting as to their conscience and not to party lines, as we have witnessed with the recent mill legislation.
    The drawback is that it would be time consuming, the advantage is that each bill would be thoroughly examined and debated upon and passed/defeated/ammended on its merits, which I believe is the intent of good governance.

  6. eagle eye

    September 25, 2007 at 10:58 pm

    So we know what the problem is, the real question is, what is the solution. I suggest, as a starting point, forming an organisation to support independant candidates. Sort of a party for the non aligned. Start now, build a base, and sweep the incompetent, the unprincipled and the incomprehensible trough feeders from both houses.
    With a range of voices and view points, who knows, we may just get something that resembles government for the public good.
    The standard would not have to rise far for it to be a huge percentage improvement on the complete and utter cluster fuck that masquerades as the Tasmanian polity at present. If my critique offends some present members, good, because, by god something should. The honest and competent in both houses are too few and too far between.

  7. Larch

    September 25, 2007 at 1:57 pm

    I agree with Tomas and would like to add further comments.I beleive the gene pool in all parties is too small and the reduction in the number of pollies many years ago simply added more power to the 2 or 3 in charge of the party.All the others yield and are rewarded as there are so few members and many jobs.Why would you buck the system or go against the leaders when you now have a ministry or portfolio etc.Once in parliament its hard to get thrown out if your party keeps you as 1 or 2 on the ticket so aagian,toe the line.With little new blood being able to get into parliament and any initiative rewarded by being ostrcised or demmeaned,how can we ever have a progressive,involved parliament.In crease the numbers in the house ,have more people moving through forcing others to perform.Likening it to football,the best teams have a good set of second stringers waiitng to be promoted so the senior players have to perform or be replaced.Currently there are no replacements within the team

  8. Buck and Joan Emberg

    September 25, 2007 at 1:06 pm

    Monocameral government pretty well guarantees continuation of poor quality pollies and pretty well guarantees corruption. One of the worst ideas around is a single house.

  9. Tomas

    September 25, 2007 at 2:22 am

    This article is spot on in many regards – there is, sadly, a serious lack of talent in the Tasmanian Parliament. Try sitting in on a session or two in the House of Assembly or, worse still, the Legislative Council. Not to say that many of these don’t have some good intentions, they just lack the intellectual firepower to do anything imaginative or interesting.

    One fundamental problem is the pay scale. If you are bright, then there are either plenty of other ways to make a buck (if you are Lib leaning) or address social justice (if you are left leaning). Unfortunately, for many in Parliament, this is the best paying job they could ever asprire to – and sometimes when they get there, they haven’t any original ideas to do anything with the ‘power’.

    If you rid the State of the pack of parasites that are the Legislative Councillors, then there may be enough money to pay competitive salaries to attract ‘talent’ into the House of Assembly. Until then, dont expect innovation or intellectual bravery from the politicians.

  10. The Oracle

    September 24, 2007 at 1:03 pm

    George Harris, an excellent contribution. At last, a voice of reason. Now, if only the unwashed masses could hear your message.
    Signed: Another Woodie. See you at the Guild maybe.

  11. R. Clifford

    September 24, 2007 at 5:18 am

    I think this situation regarding Mr Throat and Mr Lester is likely to go around in circles unless addressed promptly.
    May I suggest that if Mr Lester really is capable, as he claims, of vetting this information, then I for one think he should give us all some evidence of this exclusive and exhaustive intelligence.
    So come on Mikey and show us the size of your…inside track. Or are you, like you claim Mr Throat to be, another empty suited shit-hustler.

  12. George Harris

    September 24, 2007 at 4:21 am

    reading an article like this, on a website like this, one must ask: what is the long-term electoral objective of the Greens? What do they hope to achieve? How far do they think they can they get with the tactics that they and their supporters are employing?

    As someone who joined my first environmental campaign 35 years ago, (Lake Pedder), I have within the last decade ceased giving any voting support to the Greens. Always a first preference Labor supporter, I have been a woodworker for the last 25 years, except in the mid-90’s when I spent a year working in a Union office. Around that time I witnessed the deafening silence from the Tasmanian Parliamentary Greens on workplace justice during the Groom government’s Part IVa workplace agreements legislation. Earlier I had witnessed the behaviour of the Greens during the Field government, but it has since dawned on me that ultimately they have worked to undermine every state government in the last 25 years, no matter what its colour. Why would anyone support them to have the balance of power in the Senate in the coming federal election???? I won’t. It is the case that every Liberal and Labor member that has sat in the Tasmanian parliament in the last 20 years up until today would now rather swim through raw sewerage than have to work with the Greens on anything. What sort of achievement is that???
    Consider the next state election. If there is a hung parliament, or a minority government, and a question arises that goes to the heart of the viability of the forestry industry, there would be a bi-partisan Liberal-Labor vote that would again leave the Greens sidelined. Similarly, in the pending federal election, I am so happy to observe the bi-partisan approach that neutralises the forestry question. Voters (including Green supporters) will have to distinguish between the only two parties able to form a government, and the evaluation of each on environmental questions will be decided on everything except forestry policy… Hooray!
    I do not have an ideological leaning towards the policies of Family First, but my dislike of the Greens is greater. Meanwhile, I will continue to promote my own ideas on appropriate industrial and environmental management, and I know that the people that hear me can appreciate where I am coming from. They certainly can recognise that the Greens forest policy, as written, is based on myth and fantasy. It is undeliverable, and if a circumstance did exist where its implementation was attempted, then bankruptcies and unemployment would proliferate, together with the decline in population and viability of timber dependent communities all around the state. Vote Green? You’re joking!

  13. Mike Lester

    September 23, 2007 at 4:50 pm

    Still nothing in this that indicates the work of an insider. Knowledge of obvious facts (Lara is a minister and from the left) then adding a bit of vitriol or drivel doesn’t constitute inside knowledge. Tell us something that is really new and factual and not just a nasty little dig, otherwise its just bs.

Leave a Reply

To Top