Politics
More Kool-Ade, Comrades
Was David Bartlett’s announcement today that he will give up on Government the final act of communal suicide of what appears to be no longer a party, but a cult?
For the Tasmanian ALP resembles nothing so much as a cult that believes in its own mantras even in defiance of everything reality tells it, even when those mantras lead to a strange communal suicide pact.
David Bartlett sought to present himself to the media as this island’s Barak Obama. Alas he resembled no US President more than Richard Nixon in his sweaty demeanour, strange self-pity, his sudden bursts of public aggression against opponents and an often breathtaking lack of grace.
His hatred of Greens Leader Nick McKim, his lack of political capacity to recognise a strategy that had only failed and reverse it, were all, along with his sense of himself as a man of the people wrongly victimised so redolent of Nixon in his final days.
To the end, like Nixon, he seemed unable to demonstrate any capacity for self insight. Bartlett, a man known above all else for his vaulting ambition, now claimed to be so different from Graham Richardson in terms of character. But the real difference was Richo used to win, and Bartlett lost, and in losing was willing to destroy the party with himself.
All that now remains is for the Westpac chopper to rise from the lawn of our Parliament House, ascending into the clouds, with our Great Leader giving us one final victory wave before he disappears forever into the darkness of eternal defeat.
And, Eleanor Hall, ABC, The Drum:
Governor’s displeasure in State of uncertainty
By Eleanor Hall
Posted Sun Apr 4, 2010 10:03pm AEST
Tasmanian Premier David Bartlett speaks at a press conference
Tasmanian Premier David Bartlett speaks at a press conference in Hobart, April 1, 2020. (ABC News: Damien Larkins)
Graham “whatever it takes” Richardson said it was politically stupid.
Here was a state Labor Premier volunteering to hand power to the Liberals if the voters delivered a hung parliament and gave the Liberals a higher share of the popular vote.
But when Tasmania’s Labor leader, David Bartlett, made this election campaign pledge, he not only infuriated some in his own party; he also almost certainly upset the man whose job it is to commission a government – Tasmania’s Governor, Peter Underwood.
Professor Richard Herr, from the University of Tasmania, told the World Today that he thinks Mr Bartlett’s promise would have provoked extreme displeasure in the Governor’s residence.
“The promise, as so-called, was at best naive. It certainly wasn’t constitutionally based. It’s not in the gift of the Premier to give away government.”
The final result – almost two weeks after polling day – did indeed confirm a hung parliament with the Liberals winning the popular vote. This fueled the speculation that Mr Bartlett would be moved aside by his party to allow another Labor leader to quietly dump the Bartlett promise.
But at its pre-Easter meeting, the Labor caucus confirmed Mr Bartlett as leader. And he is adamant that he won’t walk away from his election commitment.
That doesn’t mean, however, that a minority Liberal government is a certainty or even a possibility in Tasmania, anytime soon.
One of the state’s most experienced political watchers says the Governor would almost certainly have told the Labor leader, privately, that he would not be able to accept such advice and that Mr Bartlett would be embarrassing the crown by forcing the governor to defy him.
Professor Herr says that if Mr Bartlett does follows through with his plan to go to the Governor after Easter and recommend that the Liberal leader, Will Hodgman, be made premier, he will “put Government House in the centre of a political football match, which really the chief minister was obliged to avoid. And that is really what was irresponsible about making that promise in the heat of an election campaign.”
But given the belting Labor received at the election, with a 12 per cent swing against it, why would the Governor NOT agree to commission a minority Liberal government ?
Professor Herr has been analysing the peculiarities of Tasmanian politics for many years and he says that if the Governor were to commission a minority Liberal government, this would remove any fallback position for the Governor if that government failed and would place all the risks of instability with the crown.
He says that if, instead of simply being handed power, the Liberals were to be forced to seize it from Labor on the floor of the parliament with support in some form from the Greens, then this would make for a more stable government. He says the Governor is well aware of this and would know that the only way that he can protect the dignity of the crown is to commission a minority Labor government.
So would things be different if the Liberal party were to do a swift deal with the Greens?
Professor Herr says probably not. He cites the situation in 1989, when Labor had a signed accord with the five independent Greens, and still the Governor commissioned a minority Liberal government and forced the issue to the floor of the parliament.
Nevertheless, the refusal of either major party to negotiate with the Greens leader, Nick McKim – whose party won 5 seats to the ten for each of the major parties – is curious.
There is certainly no love lost between the major party leaders and Mr McKim. Labor’s David Bartlett called him a “wolf in sheep’s clothing” who wasn’t to be trusted and the Liberal’s Will Hodgeman accused him of power-tripping.
But most political watchers blame these leaders’ refusal to negotiate with the Greens on their reluctance to muddy themselves with minority rule when the history of both their parties in such a government is that it delivers majority rule to their opponent at the next election.
An old political hand, like Graham Richardson, would no doubt remind any aspiring leader that power is power and they should grab it while they can and not quibble. Read more HERE: Governor’s displeasure in state of uncertainty