PUTTING ASIDE the sheer crassness of it all, there is something symbolically elegant in a “live debate” between pseudo-Labor leader David Bartlett (puppet Premier of Tasmania) and pseudo-Liberal leader Will Hodgman (aspiring puppet Premier of Tasmania) on pay-TV channel Sky.
There is a pure and simplistic elegance associated with a Labor-Liberal accord love-in guaranteed to exclude most of the Tasmanian viewing public. Such exclusion would be remarkable in most places which value retention of some modicum of “democratic” discourse in an election campaign.
But it just goes to show that the Bartlett-Hodgman tag-team aren’t particularly interested in the interests of Tasmanians anyway. Why they don’t take the advice of Robin Gray and form one party is only prevented by the personal ambitions of individuals to exclude others from the perks of office on the grounds of self-interest, rather than policy differentiation.
So we are to have this “pie in the Sky” puffery pandering to a political discourse which has no real relevance to Tasmania’s future direction, but everything to do with an appalling reductionism to the cynicism of tactical manoeuvring for personal power.
“Heads in the Sky” clouds posing and preening in identical mind-garb, suit-garb and corporate forelocking tugging airhead garb is confected to reflect genuine difference, but it is all merely theatrical, superficial, abjectly bankrupt in terms of the political-economic-environmental interests of most Tasmanians now and into the future.
How metaphorically appropriate is it that the leaders of Tasmania’s absurdly named parties representing the interests of capital above all else, which have nothing to do with the real values of liberal political ideas on the one hand, or meaningful social reform on behalf of the disadvantaged on the other, should agree to a sky-high meeting of mutually dishonest reinforcing confections of minor differences.
Perhaps it is just as well that most Tasmanians won’t be able to watch the mindless interchange of “spot the minor semblance of difference” that will be offered, as in some black comedy, where fictional promises are scattered like bright balloons into the air, styled to exploit electoral advantage, but without any basis beyond populist appeal.
This will be most apparent in the pork contest about roads for heavy trucks, but look for the manufactured concern about the two key areas of State jurisdiction, health and education, where a complete lack of professionalism in terms of the health and well-being of Tasmanians will be subordinated to political opportunism.
It now matters little whether the fake Labor Bartlett government retains power or the fake Liberal Hodgman government gains power. Their future policy prescription for Tasmania is Easter Island identical. A hung Parliament will see an unsightly scrabble to preserve personal position, but without reference to anything beyond style and concoction.
C’est moi, here and now. It’s all about ego. A little tryst in the Sky with make-up and make-believe. Je suis le roi.
There ain’t no diamonds in the Sky in Tasmania’s future. Just rust.
Mark’s view: HERE
salamander
February 9, 2010 at 10:46
A lack of interest in the welfare of the people must be a natural progression from a group of head-nodders who have no ethics, moral decency, or principles. The division of head-nodders between Labor & Liberal doesn’t affect their those basics, because they are just products of a corrupt system which encourages the lowest common denominator be the standard. With an absence of talent in these politicians, beyond a strong sense of self-preservation, what else can we expect?
R Menzies
February 9, 2010 at 12:41
It is an interest of mine to watch the Christians like Compton, Petrusma, Whitely etc pander to the big companies like Federal Hotels and Gunns and compromise everything Jesus taught them. Have you ever heard one of them make a statement about exploitation of the poor or the environment. Do they ever say what they believe? I haven’t heard them say anything contrary yet and they appear to be totally enslaved to Mammon, but keep the spin up guys, don’t you change, because that’s the part that would really make us believe in you. Christian hypocrites are a dime a dozen and you guys all fit that bill.
Jack Nimble
February 9, 2010 at 15:30
Re # 1
My thoughts exactly, you can add the Hodgmans to your list.
They are only christians when it suits their agenda, they were all blowing their christian bags when voting down Nick Mckims right to die legislation, morally wrong, against Gods wishes and all that crap.
But when it comes to destroying GODS creations ie, forests and the creatures who live in them, being a part of the corrupt pulp mill fiasco, thats ok.
It would be interesting to be at the pearly gates when they arrive, Saint Peter may say something like this.
YOU MAVE AIDED AND ABETTED IN THE DESTRUCTION OF GODS CREATIONS ALL IN THE NAME OF GREED.
GO STRAIGHT TO HELL, DO NOT PASS GO, DO NOT COLLECT YOUR GUNNS SHARES ON THE WAY.
Concerned Resident
February 9, 2010 at 16:01
Two equally unintelligent beings, like the lab/lib leaders, who are Gunns puppets, who are supposed to represent opposition to each other would have nothing to discuss. It would be a case of “whatever you say” from either party. Sounds like a very boring performance to me. It can’t possibly be a debate because they are exactly the same in their ideas as to who is the real boss in this state, and they will both continue to grovel to him. This ‘debate’ is a total sham and shame on Sky for agreeing to this two horse race when in fact there are three beginners. Bartlett only went to Sky because no other chanel would give the unfair air time to just the two of them, they all insisted for a debate the three of them should be there.
Jack Nimble
February 9, 2010 at 16:15
Post # 4 Should read, re # 2.