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

Economy

The likelihood of a Hung Parliament …

First published August 10

Will Hodgman has a problem. It’s Rebecca White. The latest EMRS poll ( HERE ) reveals a 9-point lead over Will in Preferred Premier.

Says EMRS …

The latest poll was the second to be conducted since the resignation of Bryan Green in March 2017 and the appointment of Rebecca White as the new Labor leader.

Respondents were asked to choose between Premier Will Hodgman and Rebecca White as to who was currently their preferred Premier of Tasmania.

For the first time since May 2009, Premier Will Hodgman received a lower level of support as preferred Premier than the Labor leader.

In the latest poll, there was again a decrease in those nominating Premier Hodgman as their preferred candidate, down 5 points from May 2017 to 37% currently. Support for Rebecca White as the preferred option stood higher at 48%, a significant increase of 9 points from 39% in May 2017.

The latest poll confirms that support for Rebecca White as preferred Premier is considerably stronger than that for her predecessor (up by 28 points from the 20% nominating Bryan Green in March 2017).

It also saw a further decrease in the proportion of respondents unwilling to nominate either of the two leaders, with 15% currently of the view that neither Premier Will Hodgman nor Rebecca White
was their preferred choice as Premier of Tasmania (down 14 points from 29% in March 2017).

The poll reveals there is an increasing likelihood of a hung Parliament. A poll must be held before May 19 next year. As EMRS says …

After excluding undecided voters, support for the Liberal State Government has decreased marginally by 2 points since the last poll was conducted in May 2017 to 37% currently.

Support for the Labor Party showed no change since May, remaining at 34% in the latest poll. Greens support also remained steady, increasing only slightly by 1 point to 16%.

Among the remaining decided voters, 6% stated they would vote for an independent candidate if a State election were to be held today, while support for the Jacqui Lambie Network (JLN) was measured for the first time in the August 2017 poll and stood at 5%.

Will must be very worried …

*Lindsay Tuffin has been a journo since 1969, mainly in Tassie apart from a few years elsewhere in Oz, and in Pomland where he had a brief stint as a youth worker and where for five years he edited ‘Buzz’ – a magazine dealing with church and social issues and which was beaten in audit circulation in the Specialist Interest category by Aero Modeller magazine …!

The definitive analysis of psephologist Dr Kevin Bonham HERE … Let’s put that in the historic context drawn from other states. It’s very simple: preferred premier is an indicator that usually strongly favours incumbents. When established state premiers trail as preferred leader in Newspoll (never mind by eleven points), they either lose the next election or are removed by their own party. EMRS is not Newspoll, and it’s possible its continued devotion to landline polling (which I strongly believe to be not fully randomised) has meant its results have become total rubbish. But if that’s not the case, the government should be rather worried. The suggestion is that so far negative attacks on the new Opposition Leader have either not worked at all or even backfired. Opposition Leaders don’t lead by eleven points just because people like them. Historically this sort of imbalance happens when governments are in deep trouble or their leaders are unpopular, or both …

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

77 Comments

  1. MjF

    August 17, 2017 at 5:40 pm

    warriner #70

    I have no problem with the profits leaving the state or the country. It’s not as though there’s a scarcity of foreign companies operating in Australia.

    If the farms had been profitable enough for their owners, they wouldn’t have sold out. Simple.

    Your question re profits generated between traditional farming and treegrowing will never be known. Who knows how the land may have been managed by farmers going forward. Land that was average to marginal and was primarily grazed at the time of purchase, not intensively farmed such as dairy or cropping nor heavily capitalised.

    I understand your issues with vermin and can only suggest (if you are affected) that you contact the foreign owners appointed local agents. RMS or New Forests still have a responsibility to manage boundary issues and associated costs regardless of where they are headquartered. They have appointed local people on the ground to deal all aspects of their land management including fencing if required.

    Max @ #71

    I can only conclude the FIRB approved the sales of land to foreign interests which would then have excluded the government from intervening (as was the case with VDL recently).

    I hardly think FT would have been in any position to take over anything though.

    Who is SSF?

  2. Robin Charles Halton

    August 17, 2017 at 1:44 pm

    #65 John Biggs, I may have to review my intended support for Pauline after her burqua incident, at least for the time being, in Parliament yesterday.

    I admit to getting angrier with our Parliaments’ both Federal, State and now possibly local government, too.

    The entire political correctness spectrum followed by the outrageously increasing path of legal challenges is out of hand and could possibly lead to a move away from the major political parties who thrive/survive on those systems.

    Our State government is stuck in a rut with the Taswater racket and at least with the operations two Local Governments!

    There is nor much can be done re Health as the system will always remain overloaded with those who try to abuse the system who don’t bother to comply to healthy lifestyle choices.

    At a Federal level The PM has missed his chance to show real leadership and offer to “sanctify” same sex marriage by a parliamentary conscience vote!

    Now the continuity of Parliament is subject to dual nationality issues to be looked at by the High Court!
    Pleasing to see Joyce and now Nash both as subjected, sticking to their guns and maintaining their positions as elected representative of the National Party.

    We cant afford to have disunity over the issue for which would lead to a dysfunctional Parliament as Shorten and Burke seem to want to suit their own ambitions to mislead the public with their filthy takeover agenda.

    Shame on Labor when compared to Hanson, Pauline is still in front as a worthwhile protest vote to bring the ruling parties to their senses, so to speak!

  3. Chris Harries

    August 17, 2017 at 1:36 pm

    Tony (#73) I can’t answer most of that because you are being descriptive about the reality that’s around us and it is confounding to many people, including ourselves.

    When you say “the simple effective thing to do, is remove the current political system and replace it with something which has a chance of success”… that’s a very noble challenge but I don’t see it as a simple one.

    Stay well, Chris

  4. Robin Charles Halton

    August 17, 2017 at 12:43 pm

    #72 mike, Absolutely impossible to move Hobart port to Margate, defies logic, why would you suggest such a move from an established deepwater port close to the city hub!

    The sewerage plant a Macquarie Point is essentially a modern plant suitably located for the area it services, moving upstream to Selfs Point requires pumping and massive relocation costs choosing a less efficient and less environmentally sound route and destination!

    Bob Clifford mentioned it should be capped on site and remain functional.
    Government should conduct a study to define Bob’s idea as it may solve what is becoming a long drawn out issue of attempting to change a land use way of retaining the plant in situ while ideas flow about the creation of a Docklands/ Darling Harbour fantasy land for tourists behind a WORKING PORT that should continue to operate on a multiple use capacity.

    As for Claremont we all know that Walsh choose the Mona site which like the the former caravan park both are close to the sewerage plant.
    In fact one can see the plant from the Mona visitor Carpark, a feature I cannot help to observe!
    That could be a tricky one but is worthy of most likely coming up with some lateral thinking, remembering at present the Glenorchy City Council is totally disfunctional and therefore unable to contribute any responsible assistance for the ongoing Mona development.

    Remember that Greater Hobart is still developing in spits and starts in a totally uncoordinated fashion with it wasnt for the challenges by Fragrance to offer their services to liven up the place with some new buildings the cruise ships and the existing Mona operation the place would be dead as we lack the extended warmer climatic conditions that the Eastern seaboard offers for tourists and locals virtually all the way from Cairns, south to Bermagui/ Tathra/Merimbula/Pambula area in southern NSW

    No matter what, visitor numbers will be down to buggery as they are at present because of the winter chill in Tasmania, its not an attractive winter destination for tourism.

  5. Tony Stone

    August 17, 2017 at 10:36 am

    #69, Chris, there are a number of way to approach a sickness within a system, whether that be biological, psychological, sociological, environmental and political. One if symptomatology, where we cover and try to suppress the symptoms, hoping the problems will some how go away.

    The current political system use lies, deceptions and distractions hoping they will last long enough for the problems to go away. So they do things like promote economic and population growth, privatisation to allay peoples fears of declining social and living standards by saying giving everything to the rich corporations, will create a trickle down effect, when the facts are the opposite

    So we end up with expensive, uneconomic services and unaffordable living standards. Cheaply constructed soul destroying high rise future disasters to allay the problems of accommodation, unaffordable toll roads to make out they are making transport easier, they ignore the environment and lie about everything else. Hence our current and future collapsing situation.

    The other is the simplistic easy logical approach, by removing the cause of the problems. Which everyone rejects because they are told by the incumbents and supposed knowledgeable elitists, that simple ideas don’t work.

    In every form of illness, the simple act of finding the cause and removing it, opens the door to healing. Yet this approach is rejected by all for every aspect of society, psychological, biological, social environmental and political. Yet they desperately cling to the known causes desperate to make them work against all the logic and viewable rationale. Your own post reflects that approach admirably, as per this quote.

    “If there ever is chance to bring about fundamental reforms to democracy there’s a squeak of a chance that it may be possible in the midst of social chaos when the status quo becomes disrupted and destabilised by circumstances.”

    Stick with the cause and try to make it relevant is the mantra, when the facts are, unless you remove the cause, nothing will change.

    So the simple effective thing to do, is remove the current political system and replace it with something which has a chance of success.

    It would work, if all the people were to take some responsibility for their lives and approach to living in society, by being involved and a part of our governance system.

    At the moment, it is the politicians, corporate greed and senior bureaucracy that are the cause of our sociological and political illness. Clinging onto what is killing you, only gets you to a funeral.

    As a lateral thinker, I look for alternatives that will remove the causes, allowing healing and rejuvenation to occur, just like nature does and probably our entire universe. But ideological humanity does the exact opposite and we have the results rising their head before us.

    Yet everyone rejects any change which may give us a chance, all they want is what we have at all costs, refusing to take any form of responsibility for their lives and our societies. Which is a symptom of fatal outcome and that’s what we face.

    Unless we upend the current approach to life and in this instance political life and remove it, nothing can or will change. When you see not one comment of support for what I envisage, or any thing else as a way to get rid of the causes, then it would by suicide for anyone to try to get elected to put them into action. All one can do is test the waters, then walk away and watch the unfolding calamity.

    There is a simple, workable way to overcome all our political and other sociological problems. Avoidance, denial and refusal to evolve our societies away for the current path, will bring only one outcome and that is the one we are seeing growing rapidly around the planet. Chaos, collapse and destruction.

    Personally, I also hope that we could work things out with our current approach, but how do you do that, when those in power are the worst kind of deluded ideologues on the planet who refuse to change in any way and as ideologues live in pure fantasy and never the real world. As reality is catching up with the deluded fantasy, we are seeing the results across the planet.

  6. mike seabrook

    August 17, 2017 at 4:18 am

    #29

    what about $150 million of loot to relocate the functional macquarie point sewerage treatment plant, money to move the claremont plant (so that mona can proceed) and $400 million to move the hobart port to margate and build associated roadworks so that mac point stage 2 and stage 3 can proceed

    things will then look good in tassie if these highest of priorities can be met.

  7. max

    August 16, 2017 at 11:48 pm

    # 67 MJF
    All correct except for the fact that taxpayers lost millions. Why didn’t our government prevent an overseas buyer, FT or our government should have taken control of this massive land giveaway sale to a foreign country and all the profits would have stayed in Australia, recouping some of the massive tax losses. SSF is still falling over themselves to sell Tasmania instead of trying to make a profit.

  8. Simon Warriner

    August 16, 2017 at 10:29 pm

    re#67, No, profits are not shared locally. Profits are repatriated to wherever the owner pay their taxes.

    What is spent locally are the expenses incurred in generating the profit. These may be greater or smaller or equal to the profit, and some supplying the services may make profits of their own, but the cream off the top which is the profit from the plantation produce sale leaves the state.

    The question is whether plantation forestry is contributing as much to the island’s economy as the farms that were displaced where contributing, or might now be contributing.

    Another question is whether the wallaby population explosion that accompanied the MIS debacle is ever factored into the net economic benefit equation.
    That issue is creating massive negative impacts on farming businesses adjacent to plantations, in some cases reducing production by over 50%.

  9. Chris Harries

    August 16, 2017 at 10:06 pm

    Thanks Tony (#68),

    I’ve been a social activist for the past four decades and in doing so have taken on many challenges.

    I hope you aren’t suggesting that I’ve been ‘howling you down’ for politely pointing out the huge difficulties in radically reforming democratic apparatus. In fact I’ve invited you to go for it.

    By all means try to turn the system on its head, but if you want to see tangible success it may be more sensible to go for system reforms that have a greater chance of acceptance. That’s all I’m saying. Plus, if you think you can overcome human nature, than you may end up pretty disappointed.

    Like you, I see a lot of breakdown happening and much more coming our way. If there ever is chance to bring about fundamental reforms to democracy there’s a squeak of a chance that it may be possible in the midst of social chaos when the status quo becomes disrupted and destabilised by circumstances.

    I have a colleague (Paul Smith) who specialises in novel approaches to governance reform. I would give you his contact but can’t find it at the moment, Paul.

  10. Tony Stone

    August 16, 2017 at 8:58 pm

    #57, Chris, my only interest is Tas, the rest of the world is completely stuffed with no hope of redemption from total collapse and anarchistic attrition.

    When that will get into full gear, no one knows, but by all indications, it’s very close and already happening on a growing scale in every society that is not totalitarian and they will soon feel the effects of evolutionary change being forced upon them.

    One only has to view the comments on this forum, to see there is absolutely no hope of any change in our political system, or approach to the future.

    Comments all revolve around complaining about what we have, but sticking with it no matter what. Any ideas outside the closed political box are classed as crazy, unworkable and any other excuse they can make up.

    Beyond testing the waters, why would any sane person attempt to get politically involved to try to make changes, when that is impossible and everyone has no interest in anything but more of the same.

    Of course denials may come thick and fast, but to the majority, maintaining the status quo of the political system is paramount, even when it is view ably collapsing and those running the show are totally incompetent in every way, other than lying.

    The facts are, no one has a clue, anyone who puts forward changes which would make a difference, gets howled down. Its been the same throughout the history if this era, shoot the messengers, but support the destroyers and their approach.

    Support for change is totally absent within the population and that’s it, the beginning of the end of the line for our current societies.

    Ideological humanities approach will never change and our political system, which everyone supports, even when denying it, will win out and destroy our future.

  11. MJf

    August 16, 2017 at 7:50 pm

    #59
    While ownership of land and trees is offshore, profits are shared locally. Currently employed, paid and spending locally are:
    1) new & old logging contractors who have invested millions in new equipment
    2) machine operators
    3) cartage contractors and drivers
    4) service mechanics
    5) truck and machine workshops
    6) site prep contractors and operators
    7) tree planting gangs
    8) nursery staff
    9) project manager forestry staff
    10) chip mill operators
    11) marshalling services staff
    12) chip heap operators
    13) additional stevedoring
    14) fuel/lubricant suppliers
    15) contract foresters
    16) machinery salespeople
    17) tyre sales and service staff
    18) vermin shooters
    19) spraying contractors

    etc etc

    While it could be said a lot of these positions already existed they are certainly more viable and busier now

    All these people spend locally, live locally, consume, pay their bills and raise families. No different to you really.

    This will continue for many years as the resource is liquidated, replanted, regrown and reharvested.

    When it will all stop I do not know.

    I do concur that one-off inflated land sale values do not lead to sustained increased AAV’s.

  12. TGC

    August 16, 2017 at 7:08 pm

    #64 “Still waiting for your comment over Cosgrove Labor Government that gave this state stable government with the support of an independent …”,
    Don’t think I had been born then.

  13. John Biggs

    August 16, 2017 at 6:53 pm

    #62 “I consider my self becoming more of a moderate right winger…” and “Personally if I had to vote for a right winger in the mix right now then it would be Hanson”

    How do you square those two comments? Hanson is an extreme right winger. Blown your cred there a bit I think Robin

  14. Brian P.Khan

    August 16, 2017 at 2:56 pm

    63 .T.G.C

    Liberal, National parties would never pork barrel ?
    What Turnbull has done in Victoria is nation building and if the left wing Victorian Government does not fund the rail link to Melbourne Airport P.M Turnbull will have the federal government fund it.

    Victoria will be a power house economy and Turnbull is rewarding them for the support they gave him at the last election Shortens Victorian Labor government cost him the title of P.M.
    T.G.C
    Still waiting for your comment over Cosgrove Labor Government that gave this state stable government with the support of an independent , were you at Stanley at that time.

  15. TGC

    August 16, 2017 at 1:38 pm

    At least some contributors to TT recognise that simply to say ‘Vote for Independents’ is no guarantee that all that much would change in politics.
    The careless assumption that to be ‘independent’ means one is without spot of political sin is fanciful- given that anyone over 18 years of age would have voted in numerous ‘political’ elections and therefore formed- or inhaled -some attitudes that may well define them if ever in a position of political power.
    Now, should an ‘independent’ thinker decide that of all the parties there is one that -more or less, in some ways or others- most closely aligns with that independent thnking; such an one may well join that party in the not unreasonable belief it may be the best way into ‘political’ influence/power. (Was Jaquie Lambie an example when she joined the PUP?)
    In some cases the ‘independent’ thinker can secure a solid foothold for those views and influence the party- in other instances it’s all ‘tears before bedtime’- but even in that outcome some ground is made up if the ‘thinker’ still wishes to ‘get in’-Jaquie Lambie again?
    I have absolutely no objection to anyone offering themselves as a political candidate: if they are in a ‘Party’ I can, if I wish- go to the Party platform and get a bit of an idea of what that person is likely to be ‘pushing’ for- but if an ‘Independent’ it’s more likely that would require personal interrogation – and I am not sure many electors would go to that trouble- for which the Independent candidate is probably grateful (doesn’t want to be asked too many questions)?
    In any event one would think an ‘Independent’ politician -doesn’t caucus or even have pre-determined views on anything that comes before them in a parliament- (‘I will look at the legislation’)
    And just to #54 Kathie (sic) Mc Gowan (Cathie?)may well secure advantages for her electorate- much as many ‘holding a balance of power’ members do (Tasmania has benefited in the past)- but even with that being applauded it must a fine line between ‘effective representation’ and ‘pork barrel’ benefits for certain electorates.

  16. Robin Charles Halton

    August 16, 2017 at 12:15 pm

    # 42 Chris, I wouldnt bet that the Liberals will be returned even if only by a glance with Hodgman as leader and with White as Labor’s new bright light.

    Re Braddon assuming that JLN puts up Devonport Mayor Steve Martin again( last time at a Federal level) there is a possibility Martin would take the lead over Lambie who has been much to my disappointment very silly lately with her lack of life skills involving ridiculous staff trips to Sex shops, this nonsense with her book and the ongoing consequences of her falling out with advisor Rob and office assistant Fern Messenger.

    Lambie need to mature fast otherwise she has lost the impetus and respect she once had.

    Personally if I had to vote for a right winger in the mix right now then it would be Hanson who despite her multiple hiccups has managed to pull through still gaining momentum as an ever increasing alternative to major party lack of reliable trust and agenda.
    Hanson over time is becoming a nation wide instiution, pity that she not more conversational and explainatory.

    I consider my self becoming more of a moderate right winger but at the same time I can suffer voting for the likes of a candidate that Andrew Wilkie may put up in Denison, believed to be the current ex mayor of Glenorchy, Kristy Johnson.

    I remain unsure of NXP who initially appeared as a bright light in Federal politics, putting up a candidate in conservative Tasmania is unlikely to achieve any following as he is fixated with bettering his home state of SA.

    Unfortunately I have issues with Hodgman remaining as leader and Labor (not White herself) so that excludes the two major parties,as for the Greens they dont exist in my sphere for seeing the world in glaring reality.

    The choices are limited so far and tough for the individual to make any sense of where to now!

  17. Chris Harries

    August 15, 2017 at 11:16 pm

    Thanks Simon (#60). I think we are more on the same page than this conversation would suggest.

    It’s a sobering thought for me that that the impulsive rejection of traditional politics is what got Trump and Pauline Hanson elected. If we reject the worst of the system (as indeed we ought) but without care, then we can get into even worse territory.

    But diversification of politics in Australia is generally a good thing. Democracies in Europe think nothing of having twenty political ideologies vying for their votes. For this reason I have favoured the entry of small time independents into our parliaments even though I may not align with them philosophically.

    There is no perfect democracy anywhere in the world, but there are reforms that can make parliaments work better than they do. I like it for instance that Tasmania bans the ending out of how-to-vote cards outside polling booths for state elections. One small way to try to stop the dumbing down of politics.

    Citizens Initiated Referenda (CIR) are often touted as a good thing, but beware that you need very tight regulation to stop money buying votes.

    I think our Upper Houses can be but around much better committee systems and should be able to bring on non elected experts to sit on them also. But for this to be effective the ability for executive government to rapidly ram through legislation has to be stymied.

    A big problem we have is that most democracy reforms require parliamentary approval – like the proverbial fox looking after the hen house. There needs to be a statutory, authoritative body, one step removed form government, that can override this problem at least in some areas.

  18. Simon Warriner

    August 15, 2017 at 10:57 pm

    Chris Harries. Thanks for all that. you make some fair points.

    You will, no doubt, be familiar with the old aphorism that “the price of freedom is eternal vigilance”.

    If the electorate is prepared to tolerate a slide back to defacto party politics then that is what the electorate will get. My gut feeling is that the tolerance of the electorate is diminishing and the trick is to get something better going before we wind up with something worse.

    Lets remember where I started this “independent” stuff. Back just after Gunns had just finished running the place like a bull in a china shop there was an endless chorus on this site of “oh this is shocking, it must stop” and bugger all in the way of ideas about how to stop it. I had a little crack at doing something but decided that the timing was not quite right,, and that a dose of Tony Abbott as PM might be helpful in terms of people understanding the party problem. He turned out to be quite the gift. Still is actually.

    My challenge to Chris, and anyone else is to point me to any ideas that have been presented to improve the performance of our government that do not depend on the goodwill of party politicians to get implemented. That is the real problem. There are some bloody good ideas out there, but they will never see the light of day while ever our parliaments are controlled by parties.

  19. Simon Warriner

    August 15, 2017 at 10:41 pm

    re 58, to quote another bloke named Simon, “short term expedience is always wrong in the longer term.

    All that land now owned by offshore entities, and guess where the profit is going. That’s right, out of Tasmania. Values higher. Not on the last round of sales.

  20. mike seabrook

    August 15, 2017 at 9:36 pm

    #25

    aspiring farmers were saved a fortune and a lot of grief when they were outbid on the land

    values higher = higher rate collections – good for the councils

    the land sellers to the mis and gunns etc. had cash to spread around the community and an exit with dignity opportunity window which was a plus for tassie

  21. Chris Harries

    August 15, 2017 at 9:31 pm

    #55
    Tony, let’s accept that almost anything is possible. But to keep our feet on the ground you are advocating a revamp of the entire world’s political systems. Not arguing against that challenge, but it’s not as if great minds and ardent reformers haven’t gone into all this stuff before a million times over. This democracy conundrum goes back to Plato and the Greeks and perhaps before that and thousands of political science folk write treatises on it.

    Whenever I hear blokes say “all you gotta do is this…” and they make it sound like a piece of cake… and cast aspersions on anyone who says it’s rather difficult… then I think they need bring back to Earth just a little. For their own sake.

    But I’m all for people rocking the boat. As said, you can make world history, so go for it Tony! You have my blessing.

  22. mike seabrook

    August 15, 2017 at 9:24 pm

    dennison 2 2 1
    franklin 2 2 1
    braddon 3 2 or 3 1 1

    the king makers are the other two electorates

    let the auction begin – hopefully truthtelling/promising by the pollies

    all funds to be spent/promised in the launceston area and central tassie/east coast tassie

    libs stuffed if close in coastal waters are restricted from recreational fishers and other coastal water users – are they deaf.

  23. Tony Stone

    August 15, 2017 at 7:25 pm

    #53, Chris, you must have a guilty conscience, the comment wasn’t directed at you or anyone on this site.

    Was referring to comments made by people when they are discussing our political system and someone mentioned the people could do a better job in jest.

    Those comments are always howled down, with comments like, the people are useless and don’t have the knowledge, experience or ability to run a state or country. Always makes me laugh when hearing that form of blind stupidity.

    #52, every heard of business, they hire those who claim to be able to do something and then get fired when they can’t. Running our state is no different.

    The best approach may be, a position to run a department would be advertised, those applying would provide their employment history, experience and also a detailed business plan of how they intended to make the department work for the people properly.

    The people would go through the applicants and then decide who should get the job to implement their plan. How things were going would be easy to see when everyone had access to the operational outcomes, if they failed in the time line allocated to them to get things done, they would get fired and some one else appointed.

    Not rocket science, but would need refining and that could easily be done by an online peoples governance forum.

    Idea’s are just that, if they look logical and workable, then they need to be investigated and refined so they do work for the people.

    Sadly most are petrified of change and difference, so any decent idea’s will never getup, just the dumb lies and stupidity of the brainless ruling class get listened to and we all suffer because of that delusional approach.

    We are no longer in the dark ages where only a few have an education, access to information and the ability to make informed decisions. This is the 21st century and just about everyone has access to endless knowledge and has the ability to make informed judgments on what matters to them and a viable workable future matters a great deal, to sane logical people.

  24. Brian P.Khan

    August 15, 2017 at 6:46 pm

    T.G. C

    Refer you to question time House of Representatives Tuesday 15/8/17 question by Kathie Mc Gowan member for Indi and detailed response by Minister for infrastructure Mr. Chester.
    Not a bad outcome for an independent T.G.C
    Government contributing $1.57 billion for regional rail package in Victoria, Tasmania received zilch for Brighton /Mona rail to Hobart.

    Have sent full transcript to Editor T.T

  25. Chris Harries

    August 15, 2017 at 2:21 pm

    (#51) Ah, in the last line you mean me?

    I wouldn’t paint me up in such a negative light. Just having an innocent ( and I thought intelligent) conversation about the difficulties of governance.

    If you’ve found a perfect workable model please do sell it to the whole world, Tony. All strength to your arm.

  26. TGC

    August 15, 2017 at 2:09 pm

    #51″Just people hired by the people to run a specified area of government and if they don’t, they get fired instantly.”
    This is #51’s idea so it seems reasonable to inquire: “How is this intended to operate”?
    I am sure TT readers -and especially #50-will immediately see a whole string of (insurmountable?) problems – but it may not be so,
    Could #51 just concentrate on this part of ‘the new governing’ and ‘please explain’?

  27. Tony Stone

    August 15, 2017 at 1:56 pm

    # 49, Chris, only voted for independents because there was no way could vote for a party. Independents are just as bad as parties in the long run, that’s why I advocate online governance and have no politicians at all. Just people hired by the people to run a specifies area of government and if they don’t, they get fired instantly.

    The last couple of elections both local and federal, voted informal because there was no one I could see could be trusted, had a decent policy for the real coming future and had the experience and ability to move us forward. It’s the first time in my life done that.

    There are forums and groups online that make decisions by members voting online. It works very well when you have a specific time line for discussion, restrict members to a certain amount of comments for each subject and then when the time line is up, everyone makes a decision.

    I’m a member of a private specific interest online group, which you have to be referred by a member to join. and prove you are a part of the specific interest involved.

    From my point of view and it seems other members, it works really well. Everyone has the opportunity to read through each comment, make their own and then decide.

    It’s been in operation for close to 7 years and has driven the group forward without any hassles, to the point where the section on voting, is very progressive and members put forward ideas for the club and then let everyone have a say.

    Most times what was proposed ends up being different, it’s talked over, others put in their ideas and mostly the idea is developed.

    This way, everyone seems to end up happy with the outcome, no one gets their way completely, no one misses out and every one seems to benefit in the end. Some don’t even bother getting involved all the time, I don’t as some idea’s don’t interest or effect me, so leave it to those who it does and that is how it has developed.

    When it first was introduced, everyone was having a say until we realised it was working for us and from there, it has been a very smooth operation. We got rid of our committee and office holders, now we all make the decisions, including financial ones. Can’t see why this would not work with our local, state or federal governance.

    Those claiming the people are incapable of making governance and policy decisions, are part of the simple minded egocentric elitists problem we face.

  28. Chris Harries

    August 15, 2017 at 1:04 pm

    Allow me to be a devil’s advocate for a moment, Simon.

    I’m more than happy to vote for independents, and do so, but not blindly.

    Within your ideal parliament, in the flash of an eye some of those newly elected representatives will see that they have philosophical allegiances with some other members and that they are diametrically opposed to the values held by some others. And so they will naturally gravitate to form bonds in pursuit of common policy directions.

    Whilst you may outlaw the existence of formal parties, it would be impossible to outlaw the invisible factions and under-the-table wheeling and dealing that would inevitably go on. Meanwhile, voters would have to expend an awful lot of their time trying to nut out who is really who and what each member really stands for and what the hell’s going on under the table. In fact, they couldn’t.

    The reason there is basically no such perfect parliament of independents in any jurisdiction in the world is that normal human relations will override any artificial ‘anti-association’ rules that you may like to enforce.

    It would be much more practical in Australia to break down the very tight caucusing that is a particular feature of our political history, plus a much more comprehensive committee system in our Upper Houses – such as New Zealand has in the federal sphere.

    Having said all that, it is healthy for a democracy for some true independents (keeping in mind that some people argue that there is no such thing) to be elected and to have an electoral system that enables this. That’s one area where Australia is well ahead of the US (for instance), since a number of our jurisdictions apply proportional voting and nearly all apply preferential voting.

    If you wish to idolise independents then you would idealise the Tasmanian Legislative Council which has prided itself on being an ‘Independent House’ for decades but which has been widely recognised as the least democratic House in the entire Westminster system.

    A small by the way: A consequence of shrinking the House of Assembly to 25 members has been that both major parties soon realised that it is now well nigh impossible for them to form a viable government from their few House of Assembly members and this awareness has ironically resulted in both parties strenuously trying to get more of their party members elected to the Legislative Council. They have been successfully doing this the past two decades with both parties now having a number of elected reps up there. (They also strategically know that minor parties would gave great difficulty gaining the 50 percent vote needed to gain members in the Leg Council, so this helps to shore up two-party dominance.)

    Many people have tried to theorise and dream of parliaments that are not adversarial and that truly represent the interests of the people. Sorry to say, there are better and worse models you can try out but politics defies perfection. It’s messy by nature no matter which way you look at it.

  29. Chris Harries

    August 15, 2017 at 12:14 pm

    Hi again Tony (#47), there are some good independents around but I wouldn’t idolise independents as all perfect representatives. Or that necessarily match your ideology. Most independents in the Leg Council over the decades have been anything but independent. Then there are independents like Bob Katter, who you may admire, but many don’t at all.

    In my earlier posts I mentioned one or two conservative independents being likely to be elected the Lower House. I was referring to Jacqui Lambie types and they would most likely stand under some umbrella. If you notice most successful independents subsequently set up a quasi party grouping to try to get more their kind elected. This is the germinal stages of becoming established as a fully fledged party. It’s just what tends happen.

  30. Simon Warriner

    August 15, 2017 at 11:01 am

    re #46, the short answer is that all the elected independent members are responsible adults and they will figure out how to do it within the rules that stand at the time. One would expect there to be a meeting in response to the Governor’s call for someone to form a government at which there would be a call for nominations, a presentation of credentials, selection of a speaker and then a vote for the position of Premier and cabinet. Job done. That meeting could be chaired by the Clerk of the House. Following on from that the priorities would be set by the members each actually representing their electorates needs, concerns and aspirations, and then determining the common ground and how best to address the issues arising in parliament. Remember, these are intelligent adults, not the spoilt children we have had to put up with in the past.

    Our present, party orientated system has evolved and similarly it can evolve to accommodate a majority of independents and even a totality of them.

    I know it is hard to imagine, because presently the parties do all act like spoilt children do whenever they cannot have what they want, but it is possible.

  31. Tony Stone

    August 15, 2017 at 9:31 am

    45# Chris, technically it would appear it’s easier to get into lower house, yet the facts don’t represent that over time. There are always one or two in each voting division that run as independents, yet they rarely get more than a few insignificant votes.

    Those with so called deep community connections, are mostly of the same ilk of those in power and part of the elitist system, even though they don’t reveal it at the time.

    The real problem is people abhor change in any way, unless it gives them something for nothing, without any effort on their behalf. So the thought of any disruption to that scenario, means they refuse to change their voting patterns until it is to late.

    We may be in that situation now, too late because change is not on the radar of anyone. When it comes to voting day, the fear of change deepens and so they stick with the status quo and give a token preference to an independent.

    I’ve been putting parties last since realising the Greens were just another ideological bunch of dick heads, with absolutely no direction, policy or understanding of what is required for good governance. Yet when looking at the results, it appears those independents didn’t even get mine or others votes who claimed they wouldn’t vote for a party.

    That show me that people say one thing, but when it come to the voting crunch, they revert to the status quo for fear of change.

    To change that what we need is a balanced form of electioneering, maybe only allowing candidates to put forward a one age policy statement online and in the print media and nothing else until the election.

    No advertising and policies must be in the form of statuary declarations so they can be held criminally accountable if they break those promises.

    Then we would not have vested interests flooding parties with money to advertise their lies and deceptions and independents are left out of decent equal opportunity to get their message across.

    As it is now the parties can say and do what they like, without fear of being held accountable. Which is a great way to run a society and we are seeing the results of that insanity coming home to roost, everywhere.

  32. TGC

    August 15, 2017 at 12:36 am

    An issue that must always arise when discussing the
    ‘preference’ for independents and not party affiliated reps in the lower-governing- house of parliament
    It must be presumed supporters of such would prefer all to be independents-not just a ‘few’- or even many.But it is never made quite clear how this would work.
    Take Tasmania’s House of Assembly as an example-if all 25 were independent- absolutely no party affiliations past or present to tarnish their independence- highly unlikely I know- but presumably the ideal for those pushing for independents-how would that work?
    I think it is a reasonable question.

  33. Chris Harries

    August 14, 2017 at 7:22 pm

    Why do you say that, Tony? Proportional voting in the Tas Lower House makes it relatively easy for independents or minor parties get representation. Technically, its actually much easier than in the Upper House where you need to acquire 50% of the vote to get a seat.

    There is a long tradition that the Leg Council is a House that is supposed to be made up of independents, though few of its members have been truly independent, most hiding their conservative allegiances under a facade of independence.

    Shrinking the Lower House to 25 seats (in 1998) has made the quota a little higher (a political contrivance to make it harder for smaller groups to gain a seat there) but any person with panache and deep community connection has a chance of gaining one quote of the five seats in any electorate.

  34. Tony Stone

    August 14, 2017 at 6:19 pm

    It’s virtually impossible for independents to get elected to the Tas parliament, except for the upper house and even those are pathetic vested interest players.

    Without a lot of money and backing of some influential people, an independent with real idea’s would not stand a chance.

    The voting majority are to scared to step outside their delusionary comfort zones, because they have been programmed to believe only a political party can take us forward. When the truth is the opposite.

    I’d certainly run for parliament and put forward real idea’s, if it was worth the hassle. But you need a really thick skin to withstand the fervent abuse and derogatory insults the parties will lay on you.

    They are desperate to keep the status quo and retain power at any cost, even to the point of joining forces to maintain that control.

    It seems the majority prefer lies and deception to truth and fact. Which means we have no hope of change and no hope of a future.

    Rebecca White might be a nice lady, but she is just another brain dead political clone, without any idea what to do to take Tas forward positively. All she is capable of doing is handing everything to her parties corporate and ideological vested interest, that’s easy to see with the useless same again policies she has yet to put forward, but will.

  35. Simon Warriner

    August 13, 2017 at 1:25 pm

    re 31, Fitch, thank you for that kind offer. I will spread the word. The first question off anyone’s lips will be “how much”, so perhaps you would like to name your price. Of course, the price will need to be a realistic one, factoring in the costs of stump removal and pasture reinstatement. It would also help to have some idea of the exact level of fencing employed to exclude wallabies.

    re 39, Robin, we are talking about are Independent political actors, so standing or not is up to the individual. If I was to have a list of names then I would expect to be called to account over their independence, and rightly so. If you know someone who fits the description below, perhaps you could suggest to them they consider standing.

    What I am trying to do in my own way is to lead the reader to the idea that that there is a better way of doing democracy under our current legal structure than party politics and that that way is to encourage the voters to place more independent representation into parliament. I can think of several individuals who would make admirable independent members, but it is up to those individuals to put themselves forward. My doing so would be presumptuous to the point of rudeness, in my book anyway. In this endeavor I am attempting to undo work that has taken decades, if not centuries, cost $millions in paid advertising and a kings ransom in partisan support from the media, and which is an ongoing effort by our party representatives embedded in their actions while they work every day on wages we are forced to pay. You might say I am trying to be the trumpet that brought down the walls of Jericho.

    It might look futile, but I do understand the principle of resonance far better than most from practical work in the real world and I see considerable and rising public expression of an attitude that approaches complete rejection of party politics, that is to say, we are approaching a resonant point in public affairs that will allow a very small force to have a very large impact on the way our small part of humanity goes about selecting and managing its future leadership group, and through that, the quality and nature of its existence. The trick is to insert a better idea at precisely the point its acceptance is possible, in order to negate the forces that would propel chaos forward so that they might take control in the aftermath, as has happened so often in the past. Not having done anything of this political nature before, I cannot say when that point is, and I might miss it, but my gut feeling is that it is approaching rapidly and it will be obvious when it is reached. The physical analogy is adding a very small weight to a resonating structure in exactly the right place to remove the resonant element of that structure. (The dry mill fan duct at Gunns, Smithton is one such example. A half inch nut welded in the right place stopped a large fan/duct assemble from producing a horrendous noise and considerable vibration)

    To be abundantly clear, I have no political agenda I wish to inflict upon others beyond this: we need to put into positions of leadership people who are prepared to, without prejudice, honestly and as accurately as possible, survey the people they represent and develop and implement, in cooperation and consultation with their peers, solutions to the problems those people face, while always attempting to deliver the greatest possible common good without fear, or favour. What those outcomes are interests me, but never to the point that I would ever attempt to proscribe those outcomes in any way. As an individual in a representative democracy that is not my right. It is a selfless endeavor, and it will require the help of selfless individuals to make it happen. (Contact me via Linz if you wish to help) The most I can hope for is that I am remembered in a favourable manner by some. At the other end of the scale it is possible that someone who finds my actions threatening will decide that I should be stopped before my actions can bear fruit. (and I am not naive about what might mean) Either way, it is an interesting endeavor, and one that is teaching me a great deal.

  36. Chris Harries

    August 13, 2017 at 1:12 pm

    My prediction is the the Libs will most likely be returned, but will need to form some sort of alliance with the one or two conservative independents who are likely to be elected and who, in all likelihood, will hold a glance of power. Most likely in Braddon but possibly also in Bass or Lyons.

    Post election the governor will first go to the incumbent party leader and ask if he / she can form a government so Will will get first call on forming a government. They won’t give up the reins easily.

    As for the term ‘hung parliament’ it is used carelessly in Australian headlines and means the same as Disaster – akin to us all potentially contracting something goddammed awful, like leprosy. In most European states it’s just viewed as normal politics and most of those governments are multi-party and they just get on with the business of running the state – more efficiently than we do.

    We can blame media partly for using the term ‘hung parliament’ in this hyperbolic fashion, but this rhetoric is enthusiastically pushed along by both major parties, so media is largely reflecting the body politic – though they also naturally approve of sensationalist headlines.

  37. Ted Mead

    August 13, 2017 at 1:05 pm

    # 40 – There is no Independents as yet.

    But parties such as UTG and Jackie Lambie may have few candidates up – time will tell.

  38. Robin Charles Halton

    August 13, 2017 at 12:03 pm

    Continued from #39 There is no doubt those that adore the Greens as the saviors of the earth will stick with them however within the scheme of things before us the Liberals must not squander their opportunity to change there leadership from the Hodgman lad!

    Labor wisely has anointed Bec White as their leader, a prudent move as Green carried to much baggage,another former leader Lara Gidding who had a bad habit of talking to the populus as if they were naughty school kids is stepping out and so she should.
    I think that old Dave the fox king might call it a day too!
    It is essential White now rebuilds the Labor team with some new faces.

    Question to the panel of experts, who are these Independents that are mentioned!

  39. Robin Charles Halton

    August 13, 2017 at 3:44 am

    #35 Simon and #36 Ted, who are these Independents that you may be suggesting!

    There needs to be a plan as I thought it is the obvious move for the Liberals to step up to the occasion and bring about a leadership change as the Premier Hodgman has been overtaken by Labor newcomer Rebecca White as it is an unprecedented move in Tasmanian politics and shows how bad Hodgman is perceived.

    Forget Abetz his day is done over his obstruction to free speech and social reforms on marriage equality.
    The demon Christian would command less respect as he currently does within the Turnbull government arena.

  40. Brian P.Khan

    August 13, 2017 at 12:07 am

    T.G.C
    Where were you when the Cosgrove Labor Government governed with independent Bill Wedd.

    This stable goverment gave us Hydro Schemes under the direction of Sir Allan Knight , a quality education system i.e Area Schools , industry supplied with clean power , supported rural communities with rail connections, planted forests for our future , expanded rural production , gave us vegetable processing plants on the northwest and northeast coasts and so much more.
    Then Sir Angus Bethune continued this legacy , how ever was betrayed by Centre Party leader Kevin Lyons ,that is when the rot began in Tasmanian political system

  41. John Biggs

    August 12, 2017 at 8:18 pm

    #34 “mild mannered Jeremy Rockliff who by now well and truly knows his place with the Liberals as a straight thinking leader.”

    Are you referring to the Jeremy Rockcliff who gave his mate Ryan unfair advantage over other salmon farmers Who despite the environmental damage done by Tassal still allowed them to stock over the limit? I don’t think “straight thinking” is quite the way to describe that Jeremy Rockcliff.

    A “mild” right wing in these neoliberal times? with no left wingers in sight? What sort of polity do you think that would end up as?

  42. Ted Mead

    August 12, 2017 at 12:51 pm

    #34 Robin – “Remember this is Tasmania, a somewhat cold and relatively unexciting dead hole of a place surrounded by retirees”. (ie You)

    In the above, you have described yourself and your right wing ideology perfectly!

    If you feel this way, then move on. The state can only proceed forward, with less dead wood amidst the “dead hole” as you proclaim.

    We can only hope!

  43. Simon Warriner

    August 12, 2017 at 12:27 pm

    re 34, with his last sentence Robin demonstrates precisely the tribalism of modern party politics that makes it ineffective and unable to deliver lasting solutions to the problems that concern the majority (99%) of the people.

    For practical, workable, sustainable solutions to be devised and delivered we need those who are delivering them to be able to consider issues from all perspectives and derive holistic responses, not ideological responses driven by where those making the decision sit on the arbitrary “left/right scale of politics.

    Robin clearly desires a center right government, led by Jeremy Rockcliff, but doing so ignores the reality that the liberal organisation in this state is a captive of one Erich Abetz, whose politics are those of scorn, division and malice down the right hand side of the page. Without a party to operate through, Abetz would be a quaint, irrelevant nobody, much like myself.

    Only an independent political representative can deliver that holistic thinking that is needed to deliver policy and administration capable of moving us beyond the financially, ecological and ethical decline we are currently in as a state.

    The political range is not a line from left to right, it is a circle with sane on one side and complete nutbag on the other, and the path between the two based ostensibly on either social or commercial priorities. We can make policy by have that range represented by individuals from various points on that circle, as is currently the case, or we could elect individuals who are prepared to discover what the full range of views on that circle are, and then weigh them on their relative merits, and consider where the greatest common good lies.

  44. Robin Charles Halton

    August 12, 2017 at 4:27 am

    There is no question the time is ripe for a Liberal leadership change to match the change over plan by Labor who replaced dimwit Green with a more suitable leader much to Green’s junior but without baggage and what appears to be a bit of common sense and decency as Rebecca White displays.

    My choice and I think would be the wise choice to replace a struggling Will Hodgman with mild mannered Jeremy Rockliff who by now well and truly knows his place with the Liberals as a straight thinking leader.

    The polls are too bad as indicated by the sudden rise of White with an equal sudden decline of Hodgman!

    The writing is on the wall!

    Both sides have their faults, neither can do much about reform, Tasmania remains as a place where very little positive things happen.

    I am not amused or shaken by Green power but a rising Independent or two could rock the boat, hopefully any challenge will be of a mild right wing nature to shake the heads of the two major parties to bring about at least some change in direction although I am not asking for miracles.

    Remember this is Tasmania, a somewhat cold and relatively unexciting dead hole of a place surrounded by retirees and scores of young people tapping into a multiple faceted employment structure facing a home owners nightmare to ever make it for combining affordability for family as well a reasonable job security.

    A few new boys and girls stuck in Parliament Square wont hurt either, look foward to voting for an opportunity for change.

    No left wingers please!

  45. Jack Lumber

    August 11, 2017 at 4:27 pm

    Re 30
    Ted any corrupt government employee or
    Elected representatives should be dealt with under the law if
    corrupt .
    However disagreements re policies are not a case for corruption .

    Re STT until the current sawlog supply contracts end STT will operate at a loss . So no major change until 2027
    The sale process of plantations has been a dogs breakfast and they should sold the entire estate and stopped being held hostage by the FIAT mafia about logs they don’t want

    Re Erica well he has a survivability rating greater than a cockroach

    Good luck Ted if you ran , I would definitely turn up and fill everything below the line just to make sure

    Never been one for gurus so thanks for the offer but NO

  46. Ted Mead

    August 11, 2017 at 3:34 pm

    #31 – One can only imagine how the wallabies come to be gone?

  47. mJF

    August 11, 2017 at 3:06 pm

    #25
    Warriner

    I own a block of basalt soil at Nietta, 500m ASL, admittedly not very big @ 40 ha but all is useable. Used to be pastured but more recently grew MIS trees which are now gone. I am leaving it fallow for 12 months and will probably replant it.

    If you know an ‘aspiring farmer’ interested in such a location even as a runoff block , I would consider selling it. If it was ‘yanked away’ before, I’m happy to put it back.

    Has water onsite, a small barn, fenced and main road frontage.

    Wallabies gone too.

    Perfect opportunity for someone so send them my way. Otherwise another round of trees for the few remaining serfs to endure with replacement stink-arses.

  48. Ted Mead

    August 11, 2017 at 2:38 pm

    #28 – Great News Jack – The sooner we get rid of this eco-trashing government the better!!!!

    By the way, whilst you were gazing into your crystal ball did you see any signs of –

    STT going belly-up?

    Erich or Guy going into retirement, or any pro forestry corrupt politicians going behind bars?

    A Tarkine National Park on the horizon?

    Me getting elected on a ‘Death to Forestry’ single-issue platform?

    One can only hope!

    If so, you can be my spiritual medium guru forever!

  49. John Hawkins

    August 11, 2017 at 1:25 pm

    #28 Lumber

    It will soon be Liberal Lolly time for the mug Tasmanians.

    After 150 million to move the University in Launceston 4 kms down the road can we try 500 million for a new bridge over the Derwent or even a billion for a cutting edge chairlift to the top of Mount Wellington.

    We wait with our mouths wide open for the lollies to come rolling in.

    Then our pollies can just steal the money and deliver it to their cronies.

    Forestry Tasmania, Ta Ann……..

    Yet we still fall for it.

  50. Jack Lumber

    August 11, 2017 at 12:39 pm

    Election will be held in October .
    Various govt bodies are preparing papers on policies, seeking funding from Feds

    Buckle up, bunker down

  51. Ted Mead

    August 11, 2017 at 12:02 pm

    #26 Georgie – I’m devastated – I was really counting on your vote to get me elected.

  52. George Harris

    August 11, 2017 at 1:57 am

    Ted Mead has totally trashed whatever credibility he might have once had…

  53. Simon Warriner

    August 10, 2017 at 10:53 pm

    re 13, Once a troll, always a troll, eh Trevor.

    I think you will find disappointment far more prevalent than anger. We need to clean up the public administration on the island so that the investments we make in time and in cash can deliver their full benefit, so that our kids can have the best future possible, and so that the endless waste can stop, and we can start reaping the benefits that should be flowing from having the good luck and/or foresight to live in one of the best places on earth. Clearly that ain’t happening at present, so I have been looking for reasons why.

    And nope, Mike Seabrook, all the money spent here on plantation development and harvesting pales into insignificance compared to what that land was capable contributing to our economy if it was being owned and farmed by locals who owned it. That one off spend has now gone. No more profit spent her, just locals reduced to serf status. It was a ladder for aspiring farmers to climb and MIS yanked it away. Now it breeds wallabies, and they cost real farmers a real fortune every single day of the year. But you wouldn’t know anything about that, would you?

  54. mike seabrook

    August 10, 2017 at 8:12 pm

    #11 john

    gunns and the mis scammers were great for tassie
    think of all that federal and mainland money and wealth which was spent in tassie on business activity, jobs etc. which would not have otherwise happened.

    the question is will the feds and the mainland investors keep sending cash down to tassie with so little return to be expected?

  55. mike seabrook

    August 10, 2017 at 8:02 pm

    # 1 chris – no problems

    fancy new offices behind parliament house to be opened in a couple of weeks in hobart with plush fitout

    wonder how this will be paid for ????

    brilliant priorities – things must be great.

  56. mike seabrook

    August 10, 2017 at 7:50 pm

    when you look at the tassie finances, debt, contingent liabilities etc. the best outcome will be to go with whoever can drag more loot out of the feds

    if the fed veto on recommencing construction of the gordon-below-franklin hydro scheme can be removed this would be a bonus

    remember when the feds stopped construction they paid a package over several years of est. $500 million which they called compensation though it was handed to the pollies to be spent on other projects etc. and the deal then was that the local pollies were to shut up.

    tassies best future is to effectively use the federal senate and vote in people who can extract all sorts of things in return for selling off their votes.

  57. Robert LePage

    August 10, 2017 at 6:59 pm

    16# John Biggs: you are right on. The libs use the nasty “hung parliament” phrase as a threat and try to make out it is just so bad.
    It has to be better than a LARGE majority government that rams through anything it wants and to hell with anyone who disagrees.
    Their ideal form of democracy would be a dictatorship, for ever.

  58. Max Hodge

    August 10, 2017 at 6:16 pm

    Why any one would put their faith in a single party is beyond me. The system is open to corruption, why would anyone donate to a party with out the expectation of a return on their donation. All parties rely on donation and they are unwilling to change even though there have been glaring examples of favours for donations. If a single party gains total power and they can only do so through donations the expectations would be for a return from the donators.
    Not one party is willing to have an ICAC with teeth, Not one party is willing to scrap donations, why? Are we being run by a form of mafia and are they to frighten to buck corruption?
    Solidarity in party politics is the only safe guard they have against exposure, no wonder they are unwilling to form a government with any one outside the the gang.

  59. Chris

    August 10, 2017 at 3:05 pm

    AS #16 says -Not a statesperson in sight. And the reason for this is yes the two party system. Take Turnbull who at one stage might be thought to have had potential statesman-like qualities but his spine gave way when the far right faction in his own party grabbed him by the goolies. He tried to be accommodating at first but that swiftly morphed into jelly-spine syndrome. Had he stood up to them at first and showed some decisiveness, they would be the ones to have given in. They don’t want a Shorten govt equally as much as Turnbull doesn’t.
    Yeah but, yeah but Shirley you do not think like so many do that Turnbull was anything less than an Abbott clone in a suit and smile.
    Smiling assassin comes to mind take the Republic and NBN which was either deliberate or accidental. or more likely in his head but so arranged that we were supposed to think he was a statesman.
    “you are worse than me” from the shock and awe mate who we will join in Korea under Anzus.
    Anzus used next to justify the no campaign win the Fizza’s mind, give us a break.
    #11Before him Rouse went to jail for trying to bribe a pollie to cross the floor in order to protect his forestry interests as Chairman of the same company Gunns.
    Yet we might point out that that mate or colleague of Gay went round his staff in his many companies and gave them a Chupa Chup for Christmas despite the underpayment of wages and the handing out to his mates children free Chock Tops.
    The Village of Launceston is a very small place.

  60. Second Opinion

    August 10, 2017 at 2:50 pm

    Says a lot about politics, if prettiness is a consideration.
    The notion of four-year terms of Parliament is a turkey too.
    Would just give them more wriggle room.
    A good starting point would be three-year fixed term . That would provide the imperative to perform, without being able to choreograph achievements to the election cycle.

  61. Ted Mead

    August 10, 2017 at 1:49 pm

    #13 Trev

    I can’t think of too many TT contributors who would seriously consider standing as an independent at the next state election.

    I’d love to stand on a ‘Death to STT’ platform just to test the waters of true public opinion.

    So Trev if you promise to vote for me, maybe I would gauge such as a remarkable vote of confidence that I would have support from even the most remote and unlikely sources!

  62. John Biggs

    August 10, 2017 at 1:46 pm

    “Hung” aka “power-sharing” governments work very well in many other countries. Why is there is much shock horror at the thought of having them in Australia and especially Tasmania? Gillard in minority government got more good legislation through than most other PMs ever did. Trouble was Abbott is frenzies of hatred and wilful destruction ripped them all apart again.

    The big mistake with the last Labor-Green accord was that it was too close ( putting Nick and Cassy on ministerial leather created blurring and conflicts of interest — mustn’t happen again). With little formal ties between any parties, and by all means throw in a couple of Independents, pollies can then more easily vote on issues in line with the wishes of those who elected them.

    Australia’s malfunctioning political system can largely be put to to two related factors: the two party system which has now become an end in itself, where the party’s or even just the faction’s interests over-ride the interests of those who elected them. The second factor is the quality of candidates which state and federally must be at an all time low at present. Not a statesperson in sight. And the reason for this is yes the two party system. Take Turnbull who at one stage might be thought to have had potential statesman-like qualities but his spine gave way when the far right faction in his own party grabbed him by the goolies. He tried to be accommodating at first but that swiftly morphed into jelly-spine syndrome. Had he stood up to them at first and showed some decisiveness, they would be the ones to have given in. They don’t want a Shorten govt equally as much as Turnbull doesn’t.

    So back to Tasmania. I agree with Chris’s list of Hodgman Govt ballsups all due to incompetence (child care, the hospitals, prisons, forestry) and crony capitalism, mate’s deals like poker machines, Tassal, cable car, the god awful planning system designed for our friends the developers, and more. Labor seems to be revivfying but that vision thing, I don’t see that there yet.

    So roll on a multiparty issues based government which some would call “hung”. I would call it a better mix likely to yield more positive outcomes.

  63. Ted Mead

    August 10, 2017 at 1:37 pm

    #14 – Phil

    History shows us that governments are reluctant to go to the full end of their term.

    If they do they risk some issue blowing up at the last moment that becomes out of control.

    March would be my guess, but that’s speculation!

    The Libs will be desperate for some election barrow to push by then.

    They won’t hold out until the next budget, which is essentially due in late May

    I’m sure they have got something in mind to peddle but it won’t be pokies or forestry, and Labor is steps ahead of them on health issues.

    No doubt they will play on the prosperous economic outlook, which we all know is smoke and mirrors, but if they can convince the average punter that they will be $10 better off each week then that usually hauls in the votes!

  64. phill Parsons

    August 10, 2017 at 12:49 pm

    Will Will go to an election poll early or let White overtake in the polls?.

    Giving more time to an opponent is a tactic that hopes some hurdle will apeear and they will stumble but Will could stumble too.

    Now a marriage plebiscite has been added to the mix of matters.

    I wonder what the odds are on the possible dates for an early election?.

  65. TGC

    August 10, 2017 at 12:48 pm

    It does appear Tasmanians will be faced with a large number of ‘independent’ candidates at the next State election- some of whom may be regular TT contributors
    Assuming the possibility of one non Liberal/Labor/Green ‘winner’ that could mean one of those three having to negotiate everything with a collection of angry people- because by and large those who stand as ‘independents’ are consumed with anger at the political system they despise and can’t wait to join in order to overturn.
    Few if any would be rational thinkers and certainly most would be absent the good of the State.
    Despite the seductive insistences of some TT enthusiasts for ‘independents’ – only trouble and strife would follow their election.- and no-one should think the JLN is ‘independent’

  66. Simon Warriner

    August 10, 2017 at 12:17 pm

    re #10. Mr Cowell. John Hawkins has given a single example. Gay did not achieve his notoriety on his lonesome, he had considerable help.

    And then there is the fox farce, the matter of a land swap that is missing one side of the deal, a TFS management that left an obviously disturbed person in the workplace for months until her physical violence caused me to perceive a threat to my family sufficient that my complaint had the person concerned removed from the workplace for 12 months then brought back and put in direct supervision of my partner, the failure of the mandated fire management meeting process to identify and address the fire threat that was being generated by the change of landuse from farmland to plantations (which implicates all parties to that process).

    That will do for a start.

    As I pointed out on another thread, the reality of party politics ties present day politicians up in the web of lies spun by their predecessors. In order to escape from that web a different breed of representation is required.

  67. John Hawkins

    August 10, 2017 at 1:17 am

    TGC Cowell of Perth #10

    I think Gunns Ltd was the State’s biggest Woodchipper, the Pulp mill proponent who bought the system and a corporate MIS scammer.

    I am sure they went bust for nearly a billion taking a lot of taxpayer funds down with them.

    Can you remember that little shooting match Trevor?

    This was a company run by one John Gay as botb CEO and Chairman of the Board.

    Gay was fined in the Tasmanian Supreme court $50,000 for gaming the system over insider trading for some $500,000.

    The Feds under the proceeds of crime relieved Gay of the $500,000.

    That in my book makes Gay a crook and the legal system in Tasmania crooked.

    Before him Rouse went to jail for trying to bribe a pollie to cross the floor in order to protect his forestry interests as Chairman of the same company Gunns.

    That took a Royal Commission hard fought all the way.

    Does that answer your question Trevor?

    If we had a proper ICAC many other prominent Tasmanians would have joined them for they have gamed the forest industry in this state for millions if not billions.

    The state pollies just rig the system write the rules and steal the money from the compliant Feds.

    Or maybe I am just old fashioned and I should see this theft of public funds as clever and cutting edge,the way of modern business, all perfectly commendable behaviour and right up a thinking man’s Strasse.

    Is that how you see it Trev?

  68. TGC

    August 10, 2017 at 12:17 am

    “…put some crooks in jail… ” Which crooks are they? #7 Clearly you have some persons in mind and TT is a usual forum on which to let it all be known.

  69. Ted Mead

    August 10, 2017 at 12:04 am

    Lindsay concluded in this article with – ”Will must be very worried”

    I’d go as far as to say “Tasmanians must be very worried”

    Whilst a hung parliament may be the best Tasmanians can hope for, you only have to contemplate how that will painfully pan out!

    Without independent representation holding the balance of power, then the likely scenario is that the Greens will cling onto 2 seats, and like a reoccurring nightmare or horror movie, the Greens will probably enter another dubious arrangement with Labor that will ultimately achieve very little insofar as progression goes. History has repeatedly shown us this.

    Take 1 – Greens/labor accord – Although it ended up as a disaster, it did spell the end of the Robin Gray fascist regime. At least the accord was based on contractual commitment, which provided results. The accord was going reasonably well until the resource extraction industries and unions bullied dumbo Michael field into an unworkable corner, leaving him in an untenable position to where he could do nothing but shoot himself in the foot and open the gates for Liberal rule once more!

    Take 2 – Labor/Green coalition of Cabinet representation. What an absolute failure of monumental proportions! With the Greens essentially acquiescing and capitulating to virtually everything Labor put before them. 4 years was wasted by a party who had the balance of power but chose to sit in cabinet in a minority and allow themselves to be manipulated in almost every facet when they could have achieved by far much more on the cross bench. Then to add insult to injury, the Greens put themselves in an invidious position where they got shafted prior the last election as the scapegoats for labors incompetence!

    Take 3 – Despite the Green’s humiliating ousting by Labor, Cassie O’Connor announced that the only way forward for the Greens was to have representation in Cabinet again! A hell of a lot of thought went into that declaration, which probably is indicative to why the Green vote plummeted, and has never recovered.

    The only shinning beacon of hope is that some true independent candidates come to the fore prior to the next state election, and with voter dissolution, due to the lack of difference between the main parties, the independents are elected.

    Whilst the number crunchers are out-there doing their thing, they can’t predict what the representation make-up of a future government may consist of at this stage.

    Things are looking crook in Tullarook!!!

  70. Tim Thorne

    August 9, 2017 at 11:58 pm

    #2, I think Will has a very pretty face. What’s behind it, however, is more important.

    Vote for the Mantach Party at your own risk.

  71. Simon Warriner

    August 9, 2017 at 10:58 pm

    White is a vast improvement on Bryan Green, no doubt about that. But then, road kill would be more use.

    The problem is that she is a party politician and her actions will be dictated by the financial contributors to her electoral success and the ideological wishes of the hard men and women in the back offices. You know them. Lennon and his ilk.

    If you want more of the same, vote for a party politician. If you want something different, you will need to vote for a few independents in the lower house to ask the hard questions and shake a few of the skeletons out of the closets.
    Move a few useful motions like amendments to the Integrity Commission legislation so that it can actually put some crooks in jail.

  72. John Powell

    August 9, 2017 at 9:54 pm

    Chris #1 a perfect parody description but they do not see it . Aided and abetted by Herr Fuhrer’s ex Mandarin Brad Stansfield who countenances no deviation from the gospel according to @theIPA and #neocon philosophy, They are doomed if they continue to ignore the people.

  73. John Hayward

    August 9, 2017 at 9:19 pm

    Even if Bec were simply policy-free, as TGC suggests, that would make her immeasurably more electorally attractive than any Abetz Party kleptocrat.

    John Hayward

  74. Mark Temby

    August 9, 2017 at 9:18 pm

    I’d suggest unpopularity has been building for a few years but held back by Bryan Green’s greater unpopularity. Investment in renewable energy crashed under Abbott while the government stood idle. The carbon price was removed to the detriment of Tasmanian hydro power. Job losses across federal departments (CSIRO, Antarctic Division, AFP etc) went without murmur. Political games trying to maintain the status quo on gambling, forestry etc like shifting money from Aurora energy to forgive debts. From my own perspective the lack of action on road safety and penalties where near 90% wanted change. The sleight of hand on state budgets, the decline in health services and the list grows. The unpopularity of the Federal Liberal government is a critical factor as is the domination of the Abetz faction. The writing has been on the wall all along. The loss of the three amigos, Abetz’s personal vote and, like the Federal government, the difficulty in identifying actual achievements.

  75. james boyce

    August 9, 2017 at 8:38 pm

    The Hodgman/Gutwein attack over Labor disunity over poker machine policy (four members or candidates have now spoken out in favour of a pokies rollback) doesnt seem to have hurt Bec White either…

  76. TGC

    August 9, 2017 at 7:57 pm

    So, the preference is for a pretty face?
    Never mind being a policy-free political body!

  77. Chris

    August 9, 2017 at 7:31 pm

    White as snow.
    What causes popularity, here are a few examples.

    Hodgman following Herbett’s policy agenda and supporting his Senate ticket manipulation, if you agree then you support?

    Fergies Son (failed Federal member) opening a bed in the future somewhere in Burnie and putting band aids on someones finger along with saving money by losing accreditation.
    Failing ambulance medics whose lives are endangered by drunks and drug addicts, causing many staff to leave the service.

    Smiling/grinning tree assassin contemplating a new enquiry into the G wood and further clear felling to produce paper on which he can at last write a co-herent policy on forestry instead of spin and insults.

    Fat Controller selling his power base, with emphasis on not using solar to increase the ability the HEC to use dams as batteries.

    Gutwhinger pouring cold water on all ratepayers and falsely claiming that their water will be cheaper, UNLESS he intends to shift the cost to another department, where the taxpayer will be responsible for the cost and many many public servants will get the arse. (think $s shifted from yer power account for Forestry, or TTLine).

    Martini the Liebral plant advocating the slow intrusion into pristine environments.

    All of them advocating their RWNJ policies supported by the Exclusive Brethren, the IPA and the Hillsong comrades in the Federal sphere and the ability of them, both state and federal to hide their intentions.

    Show us yer donation books !

Leave a Reply

To Top