This thread provides an opportunity for commenters to discuss the Tasmanian election, share links, make predictions, and so forth!
As a discussion starter, The Poll Bludger has posted a couple of interesting items on the campaign so far; a wrap of the first week, and, intriguingly, the results of an EMRS poll showing the Liberals leading Labor 30-23 on primaries, but with The Greens soaring to 27%, just one point short of Labor.
Update: Courtesy of myriad in comments, a link to the poll tables.
Please note LP’s statement on electoral comment.
Update: New thread – please direct comments here.
Don’t Vote for these Candidates in the 2010 Tasmanian Election #TAS2010
The candidates below have had relatives in Parliament before. Most notable their fathers were previous Premiers or Federal Politicians. Or come from old landed gentry types too.
DENISON
Scot Bacon (Labour)
Madeleine Ogilvie (Labour)
Elise Archer (Liberal)
Matthew Groom (Liberal)
FRANKLIN
Will Hodgman (Liberal)
You may not know this if this is your first Tasmanian election. You may have moved from interstate recently. You might be a tree changeer, sea changer, or even a returning Tasmanian.
If you want a healthy Tasmanian parliament don’t vote for any of on the list by seat below. AT ALL.
Political incest is wrong too.
Vote for the others according to you political preference.
It’s a conservative list. Please let me know about the others and I will update it. Particularly for north Tasmania and members of the Greens.
(Now that Wreidt and Napier are not standing perhaps some new blood will be allowed in.)
authorised by meika loofs samorzewski in cascades
One of the interesting consequences of the semi-proportional nature of Tasmania’s Lower House electoral system is that vote percentages for the three main parties can move about quite a lot without greatly changing the outcome in terms of seats won and in terms of whether or not a majority government is possible. Thus the quite significant shifts in the EMRS poll figures represent a change in the most likely outcome from 10 Liberal, 10 Labor and 5 Greens to 10 Liberal, 9 Labor and 6 Greens.
Correction Paul, the Greens are on 22% not 27 (as fun as that would be!)
See the direct link to polling:
http://www.emrs.com.au/pdfs/State%20Voting%20Intentions%20February%202010%20Report.pdf
the poll bludger also has it wrong
sorry, correction Mark!
Many thanks for that, myriad.
The figures The Poll Bludger has for the Liberals and Labor aren’t contained in the tables, either, which is weird. Perhaps he’s done some sort of nominal 2PP, but that doesn’t make a lot of sense in the context of the Tasmanian election system, I’d have thought.
It’s still interesting to see The Greens only one point behind Labor.
I think the conspiracy between Labor and Liberal to gerrymander the Greens and others out of the electoral process in the late nineties was one of, if not the, single most significant corrosive decison against Australian democracy, prior to the AUSFTA, in Australian history.
A true microcosm of what’s gone wrong with this country over the last fifteen years or so.
Mark #4, the figures cited by The Poll Bludger are in Table 3 of the report that Myriad74 has linked to. They are apparently the percentages left once the “undecided” respondents are excluded, and are therefore open to question methodologically as this procedure assumes that the undecideds will break down the same way as those who are already decided.
Thanks, Paul.
Elise Archer is not related to any sitting or former Member of State or Federal Parliament. She is an elected Alderman on Hobart City Council.
peter Tucker at Tasmanian Politics has a useful discussion of the way undecided votes have broken in previous elections and notes a difference in th pattern in the trends so far.
[Mark #4, the figures cited by The Poll Bludger are in Table 3 of the report that Myriad74 has linked to.]
Quite so.
[They are apparently the percentages left once the “undecided” respondents are excluded, and are therefore open to question methodologically as this procedure assumes that the undecideds will break down the same way as those who are already decided.]
Nonetheless, that’s what Newspoll, Morgan and Nielsen do when they publish results.
I think it’s fair enough to put a bigger error bar around the undecided group, but its hard to come up with a fairer way of actually allocating them.
I should also point out that the 22 per cent for the Greens comes from the raw question, “which party you would vote for”, which other pollsters don’t bother to publish because it gives you a huge undecided result (typically around 20 per cent, 23 per cent in this case). The next thing pollsters do is ask the undecided who they are leaning towards, which cuts that figure in half (to 13 per cent in this case). Newspoll and the rest make no distinction between those who give a straight-up answer and those who need their arm twisted. So if you don’t like allocating the undecided, you want Table 2 on the EMRS release, which has Liberal on 34 per cent, Labor on 27 per cent and the Greens on 24 per cent. However, you need to remember that there’s a 13 per cent black hole in these figures, so you can’t readily compare them to the results of the last election.
Pension age is a federal issue but it seems a state issue from reading The Mercury on line. The number of concerned persons about the increase in the age from 65 to 67 is certainly statistically significant. Cait Catt of Geeveston is one of the most annoyed but there are several others too.
It was probably the silliest thing Rudd and Swan ever did. In Germany the Social Democrat vote is down to the low 20s, even lower than some polls put the Greens in Tasmania. Increasing the pension age was a big factor. Labor is supposed to be the party of the workers. Wankers might be a better term. It is blue collar workers who work bloody hard who will be penalised the most by this outrageous policy change by Rudd and Swan, who ought to know better.
BTW, as well as my post on the highlights of the first week which Mark links to above, I also have a new post covering highlights of the two weeks since.
Paul Walter @6
agreed.
That particular act of bastardry, pretty much confirms the anti democratic desires of both the ALP and Liberals, and exposes their “differences” on policies as a sham to “con” the voters.
The effects are self evident in the dearth of talent in either party, and it is clear that they regard political seats as a matter of inheritance rather than “representation”.
Thankfully, despite the best efforts of these talentless fools, it looks like their efforts are proving futile in the longer term.
Actually Tasmanian voters have more choice than anywhere else about how they elect thanks to STV. If the Greens are so wonderful and have so much to bring to Tasmanian politics (and actually they do have a lot to contribute) then how come they are refusing to even consider accepting the responsibility of executive office: http://www.themercury.com.au/article/2010/03/03/131155_election.html?
Geoff,
I’m not to sure what you mean by “STV” – perhaps you are referring to the Hare Clarke system of proportional representation ? This was indeed manipulated by the “Laborials”, in an attempt to deny Green representation in the Tas. Parliament through reducing the number of members/electorate from 7 to 5, thus increasing the threshold before a candidate can attain a “quota” to ensure election.
A predicted side effect of this exercise is the current dearth of talent entering parliament, and the “overloading” of ministerial responsibilities due to a lack of sufficient parliamentary numbers to provide appropriate divisions of labour in the parliamentary context.
You state :
“then how come they are refusing to even consider accepting the responsibility of executive office: ”
and refer to an article in the Mercury.
Having read (and reread) the article, I am unclear as to the basis for your statement, unless it is this statement (from the same article)
(my emphasis)
Which doesn’t actually square with your statement, IMHO.
Geoff
Product differentiation, and the “who is more desperate?” positioning.
Also the Greens wouldn’t want to be stuck supporting policies that they objected to … for example in Tasmania primary industry and the environment have been combined … how would that work?
It seems Jacquie Petrusma is an issue in Franklin. She is now a Liberal but was previously a Family First candidate, and as such almost won a Senate spot when the ALP stupidly preferenced her rather than Christine Milne. Luckily for the Senate the ALP shenanigans didn’t work in Tasmania, unlike in Victoria where we got Steve Fielding rather than a very good Greens candidate, David Risstrom.
Jacquie tells anyone who’ll listen that she switched from Family First to the Libs because God told her to. Jacquie has also had support in the Mercury from a Cait Catt of Geeveston, who has a namesake who defends Andrew Landeryou as a sock puppett on the Slanderyou2 blog.
The Geeveston Cait Cait was hilarious in the Mercury on line on Sunday. Her comment in response to a media beat up that all but 16 babies born in Tasmania last year had convict ancestry (probably a typo, more likely 16 percent) was that the research is not only rubbish. Cait claimed there is no one of convict ancestry in Geeveston, and that there may be some on the mainland or in Hobart but certainly not in Franklin electorate’s depopulated south.
Cait is always good for a laugh. Not so the lady she supports, Ms Petrusma.
well if ever you wanted to see what corrupt old power looks like when desperate that their stranglehold might be finally broken in Tasmania, try this on for size
Meanwhile all the greens’ posters in Bass are being systematically removed, over 50 so far, including people hearing disturbances in the night and finding men in dark clothing in their yard taking down the sign, and fleeing when spotted.
myriad74 that link is not opening on my puter.
sorry, take two
Thanks, myriad74, they are a predictable and obnoxious lot. I notice slanderyou is also running a very ugly assault from sewer h.q., as well. Good luck with the battle.
well I’ll probably live t regret it Joe2, but I actually laughed my head off when I saw the letter from the 4 fossils – talk about the whiff of fear and desperation.
The sign removal stuff more concerns me. Its organized and the police tend to be dismissive (‘it’s just a prank and without witnesses etc.’) but are taking it a bt more seriously now.
apart from that the campaign is largely going well, but it remains to be seen how much negative advertising etc. will peel off the Greens this time around. At least there’s no sign f ‘Tasmanians for a Better Future’ this time, and the Exclusive Brethren have been much quieter too, although I’m told the rumours in Bass are that they might be responsible for the removal of green signs – but it’s just that to my knowledge, unsubstantiated rumour – possibly more a testament to the rep they earned themselves than anything else.
Although I think political dynasties are unhealthy, I wouldn’t rule out a politician merely because relatives got their first. However, for those who do want to follow meika’s advice it is worth noting that Jaquie Petrusma (mentioned at #20) is the daughter of Hank Petrusma, who was a member of the Legislative Council (and I think may have been a member of the Assembly even further back). Presumably she does indeed believe in putting Family First.
There are, however, many other reasons to put her last that I consider more convincing.
Here’s a GetUp ad featuring Dr.Warwick Raverty, a whistleblower formerly from the Resource Planning & Development commission.
https://www.getup.org.au/campaign/NoPulpMill&id=952
While I oppose the pulp mill, the issues in the brief ad go way beyond even that.
Tasmanian Leaders Debate tonight on Sky News coming up in about an hour.
Or more specifically Jacques, the debate Bartlett organised without inviting Hodgeman first and deliberately organised to exclude Nick McKim.
I don’t know much about Tasmanian politics but what I’ve heard of Bartlett in the past and last night I have to say I don’t think much of him. He came across as too defensive. It was poor form the Greens were not there especially given the expected role they’re going to play in forming your (I assume) government.
I didn’t like seeing both groups come together in their common hatred of the Greens by attacking them. It’s another reason why I continually lose respect for the ALP and their hacks.
It would be nice to see The Tasmanian Greens out poll the ALP and get at least as many seats, but that is probably hoping for too much (though I note 25% are said not to have yet made up their minds. Even 6 Greens wouldn’t be a bad result.
Yes, couldnt help but notice the Tas ALP is currently polling 3rd.
Now there’s some feedback from the electorate.
GUNN CONTROL – NOW!
I don’t know enough about Tasmanian issue to really contribute, but I suspect that limitation isn’t stopping anyone else around here…
Someone, I think it was on crikey, noted that if the Libs and Labor are so resolute to stop the Greens, the only morally legitimate strategy is to agree to form a supermajority government and select from across the (jointly enormously democratically representative) parties.
The only real reason tehy wouldn’t do this is that that would allow a peek behind the beil of two party politics in Australia, and put out in the open the fact that most of the time, particularly in State politics, the parties are ideologically indistinguishable.
as for Gunns, well from distant observation they’re just a fucked up evil blight on Tasmanian society. The pulp mill is an excellent project, should be supported by all Tasmanians, all Australians based on its merits. Which is not to say it shouldn’t be closely scrutinised and where necessary modified, but the corruption of processes by Gunns to get this over the line means it can’t be supported, not by this company. Hopefully Sodra partnership will fix the governance issues.
yep it’s going to be an ugly last week. The latest EMRS poll has (once the undecideds are excluded) has the Greens holding on to well above 20% and the chance of 6 seats; but it’s generally agreed that while the consistent polling now over several months for the Greens suggests perhaps otherwise, normally the Greens vote is overestimated in the EMRS. Typically undecided voters also trend back to the major parties on election day too.
However the really heartening thing I have to say is to see that finally the death-grip and use of fear to sway Tasmanians away from the Greens seems to be significantly diminishing in effect. While I haven’t ruled out the impacts of the advertising and last-week push before the media blackout, nevertheless the whole tone of this election campaign around minority government possibilities, and the role of the Greens in the Tasmanian media and public in general has been much more open, fearless and questioning about what’s really good for Tas. For once people aren’t reacting with phobia and prejudice, but openly questioning and thinking about what this state wants and needs including a future with the Greens playing a significant role. That alone is an enormous step forward.
I’m feeling quietly optimistic about how we’ll poll even with a softening of our vote by/on March 20. To hold our 4 and pick up a fifth would be a great result, particularly if the Greens can pick up that fifth seat in Braddon. Denison is looking very good too. In both cases there are the particular vagaries of the Hare-Clark system in the distribution of preferences to count anything in or out.
Cait Catt says that Jacquie Petrusma is saying that God says the Libs will win three in all seats and the Greens will win only one, in Denison.
Cait may be pulling my leg.
Cait also told me that Pastor Danny Nalliah, who wasn number 2 on Steve Fielding’s Family First ticket for the Senate from Victoria the Senate election before the last one, is praying for a Petrusma victory and a Liberal majority government.
Will the power of prayer work for Paster Nalliah?
Isn’t Danny Nalliah that deranged far-right Christian extremist who said the Victorian bushfires were punishment by God because the Victorian public were okay with abortion?
From the aptly named Catch the fire ministry …
Flying Spaghetti Monster and Caroline Church that’s “pastor” not pasta or paster.
An open letter to politicians detailing concerns about the government’s relationship with the timber industry
from an eminent group of senior academics, retired judges and legal figures.
this should be interesting.
And I believe I said it was going to get very ugly
Personally, I wish The Greens did have a policy of introducing a legal heroin regime, but that doesn’t change the dishonest and malicious motivation behind Dowling’s claims.
There is simply no good reason why the state could not distinguish between contraband heroin and state supplied heroin supplied through audited and licenced dealers to those who could be registered as users and prevented from double dipping or sub-dealing though a connected database.
It is time we had a legal regime for almost all the drugs in current circulation.
Just for those not familiar with Tasmania’s electorate, the Labor smear ‘n’ fear brochure in my link above is being targeted at the Northwest electorate of Braddon, which is the pivotal electorate for this election. It’s the more conservative of the electorates generally, ALP working class heartland, the most disadvantaged electorate certainly in Tas and often in top spot nationally.
It’s the only Tas electorate without a Green member. At present there are 3 ALP and 2 Libs; the Libs want to make it three, the ALP is desperate to hang on to all seats, and the Greens have a real chance of breaking through for the first time in about a decade.
Anecdote is Not Evidence, but in my job I get to speak to a fair few people in the health industry and the Labor(and Liberal) attack ads are going down with them like a cup of cold sick.
These are not natural Green voters, rather a mix of Olde Liberal and union orientated left.
Roll on Saturday
Apologies for my proof reading error. I know how to spell pastor and I spelt it correctly the first time but typed it incorrectly the second time. I did not mean any disrespect for Pastor Nalliah. I disagree with his views on many subjects but agree on some. I do not support his claim that the bushfires were started by God as punishment for the Victorian Parliament’s decision on abortion. I think he is basically a good man with slightly loopy views, but some people say that about me.
I do not understand why the Greens do not stick it straight back to Labor and the Liberals pointing out that they have both overseen the world’s largest production of opium alkaloids, for the pharmaceutical market, for years.
The bloody pushers are the worst.
http://www.launc.tased.edu.au/online/sciences/agsci/alkalo/popindus.htm
Are you a man Caroline?
Joe2, I think you can rest assured that the Greens will be responding within whatever resources the Party has, but I think first and foremost we’ll be pointing out just how disgracefully the ALP have misquoted Cassy, and also directly lied about our drugs policy.
If you take a look at the Mercury online you can see Cassy’s comments in Hansard fully quoted, plus our drugs policy.
but then their first round of attack ads claiming that if the Greens drained Lake Pedder it would cost Tasmania 33% of it’s hydro-electricty, which (whatever you think re: Pedder) is just a flat out lie, as Pedder is used as a back-up source of water only, connected to Lake Gordon.
the ALP and others down here have never let the truth get in the way of a good green smear.
Chad – cheering news!
we’ve just been informed that Tassie voters, and again it seems to be targeted in Braddon, are now recieving robo-calls, in which a ‘Tassie Mum’ asks did the person know that Nick McKim wants to give criminals the vote – or words to this effect.
No authorisation; but unfortunately according to the TEC it falls outside the Act and therefore doesn’t need it.
Unbelievably tacky and disgraceful.
Too bad you can’t answer back to Mrs Robo.
“Well dear, if that slime in parliament get to vote in parliament, nearly every day, why shouldn’t the Tassie crooks?”
well from the feedback we’re hearing (including on local ABC radio in the north this afternoon) people aren’t impressed, as you’d hope.
I’m told in terms of political campaign psychology, robocalls & fear campaigns only work if you’re in a position of power – try and do them as the underdog and they almost always backfire spectacularly. I’m really wondering if this is the case for the ALP this time around. Their support is virtually equal with ours and about the same size as the undecideds, and they really aren’t in the position of power they think they are.
No wonder that polling the Examiner newspaper in Launceston did recently showed most people preferred the thought of a Liberal minority government with the Greens supporting / in some form of agreement. Including green voters. The ALP really is beyond redemption down here right now – in fact it’s insulting to other parts of the ALP to even really call them that.
Joe2 46 go back to sleep. What has this got to do with the prospect of Jacquie Petrusman getting a quota in Franklin with support from God and Pastor Danny Nalliah?
If any other state ALP branch performed as badly as Tasmanian Labor looks like performing this weekend, Federal intervention would be well and truly on the agenda.
I see that a Liberal candidate in Braddon is Brett Whiteley. Does anybody know his views on drugs legalisation?
I’m mightily impressed with the Mercury’s coverage, myriad. Imagine providing the full quote AND the policy!
In NSW that bulls**t is run directly from the Daily Telegraph HQ – the ALP doesn’t even need to pay for printing.
I haven’t checked this thread out for a while. Have learnt a couple of things though – Family First is in fact a Liberal Party Front.
And this Nalliah Jesus-freak – hasn’t he been up before the anti-discrimination board for inciting religious hatred, or something Lovely company the Tassie Libs keep. But of course Erica Bets is one them, isn’t he, so its not surprising their backward looking and underhand supporters of Xtan theocracies.
(Runs back to NSW.)
Hey Josh, yeah the Mercury’s coverage (and for that matter also the Examiner & Advocate) have on balance, been light years ahead of previous standards where they have both uncritically parroted attacks on the Greens (true or not) and printed the kind of editorials that were so unfactual, prejudiced and malice-filled against the Greens they were a blight.
With John Gay and Robin Gray now facing serious efforts to oust them from the Gunns Board, there’s actually a real sense that we are on the cusp of real change in Tas, including the opportunity to finally end the corruption and economic, social and environmental vandalism that is the current approach to forestry in Tas, and big development, and entrenched social inequities etc.
I say this not because I think any of the minority government scenarios are going to instantly deliver, but because I think that key green ideas have finally become so entrenched in mainstream thinking now, matched by a commensurate slide into a total lack of accountability and transparency from the ALP, that the weight of public opinion has forced the Libs to bring out something approximating their best and the public mood is in the favour of progressive change and action.
I’m really hoping I’m not going to be bitterly regretting these words after Saturday night, but it’s nice to feel and put in writing a sense of optimism and a possible watershed moment in the cultural paradigm of Tasmania’s politics and its future.
Myriad74, my take on Tasmanian politics from a distance has been that issues such as the Franklin Dam dispute polarised political opinion around environmental and development issues at a time in the early 1980s before pro-environment positions became majority positions in the Tasmanian community, and that the Greens and greens have had to make progress in the teeth of that polarisation in a way which hasn’t been seen (at least not to the same degree) on the mainland. What do you think?
I think that’s a pretty fair summary Paul, although I think that the polarisation around the dam could and would have been overcome much more quickly but for the fact that it led directly to the far greater area of concern, which is forestry.
It’s hard to put it better than Richard Flanagan did in 2007.
btw to save people a few characters, I’m fine with just ‘Myriad’ I had to stick a number on because horrifyingly my handle had been taken in the avatar world.
Danny, with the help of bible bashing American legal representation, helped put the Victorian Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001 into limbo, Paul. His win for the right to say what you want about Muslims.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_and_Religious_Tolerance_Act_2001
joe2 @ 59
As I don’t want to derail the thread, all I’ll say is much thanks. Link was most enlightening and scary.
I noticed the tone of the Mercury changing about six months ago. No idea why but I’d hazard a guess that it would be difficult to report on government affairs in a new parliament when you’ve spent the past year ignoring half the members.
Interesting that Rebecca, who posts on Poll Bludger also, removed some material on Wikipedia for expressing a pov (point of view). No criticism of Rebecca. Just pointing out that there is a lot of material anti the Racil Vilification Act that is not in the Wikipedia article because certain editors want facts only and no pov.
My cousin at UTAS was told by her lecturers not to rely on Wikipedia as a source, and to always check anything on it. Good advice. Some people who spend all their spare time editing on Wikipedia are quite light weight. I’m not saying Rebecca is, but a lot are. Be very careful using Wikipedia as a source.
It’s sensible to refer to Pastor Nalliah in the Tasmanian context as he is a key figure behind certain Liberal candidates and was a Family First candidate himself as number 2 to Steve Fielding. Background about him and the Racial Vilification Act in Victoria is necessary if we are to adequately discuss some of the scarier candidates in Tasmania. Also what is Nalliah’s position on Eric Abetz?
There is also quite an extensive profile actually on Danny Nalliah @ Wikipedia. His fall out with Fielding is mentioned in reasonable detail. Presumably someone will soon mention his foray into Tasssie politics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danny_Nalliah
Still no sign of Exclusive Brethren this time round?
I am waiting for the Satanist Black Mass site to be found in Salamanca Place.
Put away ya ouija board Paul, I’ve got a deafinite pictcha!
Look close their reading black bible thingies at satan tables!!!!
http://www.sydney-australia.biz/tasmania/hobart/graphics/hobart-australia.jpg
The EB have been mentioned as possibly behind the theft of Green signs in Bass I think?
I used to work for an EB family (long, very odd story. A three pinter at least) and I would believe pretty much anything of them.
And now the robo call thing is unravelling in a way that might just get the Greens those extra seats …
It would be such a good thing if the Greens could make a really strong showing at the expense of both parties. 6 would be good, but dare we hope for 9?
25% undecided? Four ex-premiers touting the virtues of majority government, a lack lustre campaign … One can dream.
Also from Tasmania.
Sorry to be a party pooper, but it will be terrible if no party has a majority, so in a sense the gang of four are right. Nothing will get done for four years. It will be much, much better if one of the three parties secures a majority.
Personally, I think it would be dreadful if the Libs ran Tasmania, more dreadful than nobody being in sole charge. That would be a short in the arm for the mad monk.
Wouldn’t it be fun though Paul if the Greens got 9 and a rump of Green-leaning ALP members (say 5 of them) defected and left the Libs and the remainder of the ALP to be in opposition?
Sweet dreams are made of this!
Who am I to disagree?
Sounds ideal. Could Tassie get that lucky?
Fran, 9 is pretty much completely out of the question. 7 would be a truly outstanding result. Much more likely is 5 or 6.
and ps – we’d be thrilled with 6; we’ve been campaigning hard for 5.
The majority government at all costs approach in Tasmania has led to corporatist corruption. The gang of 4′s scare campaign reveals how a Lib or Lab majority is a government for the corporatist state.
I get that Myriad, but since I’m not sure when the next time I can pitch the idea of a Green-led government without being accused of crazy talk will be, I thought I’d get in now.
I would like, just once before I shuffle off the mortal coil, to entertain the outside hope of something significantly positive coming out of an election.
And yes, 6 would be a good result, provided the Libs don’t win. If they did, it would be a not bad result.
“but it will be terrible if no party has a majority,”
Obviously, because then the parliament would be reduced to actually debating proposed legislation on its merits, rather than implementing their preferred (ideological) programme.
What a travesty of democracy that would be !
/sarc
Delighted to see the Greens might win 5 or 6 or whatever.
It does however make a mockery of the hyperventilated claims by the Greens when the Parliament was reduced by 35 to 25 that they could never again win any seats and what a terrible perversion of democracy it was etc etc. (Of course that might have been the Lab-Lib intention but the reaction ignored the arithmetic fact that in a PR voting system if you win enough votes you will win seats.)
The fact that the laborials attempted to gerrymander the Tasmanian parliament in a transparent attempt to disenfranchise Green voters has failed dismally does more to discredit the attempt, IMHO than
“make a mockery of the hyperventilated claims by the Greens”
The reduction in parliamentary numbers has also had significant effects upon the quality of representation, as the “winning” party generally cannot produce enough talented individuals as is required to administer the PS departments, which was another of the predicted outcomes of the reduction in number of members in the parliament.
“then the parliament would be reduced to actually debating proposed legislation on its merits, rather than implementing their preferred (ideological) programme.”
Yeah, just like what goes in the Senate. No ideological grandstanding there.
Sam @ 81
so you are opposed to parliamentary democracy ?
Two points :
1. The Senate does not propose/put forward legislation, so the analogy you draw is incorrect.
2. You apparently think it preferable for either of the “laborial” parties, who are both beholden to timber interests (Gunn’s) to continue BAU, and ignore the wishes of the Tasmanian public, as they repeatedly have done (eg wrt to the current pulp mill proposal)?
LOL @ Fran. apologies, I didn’t mean to ruin your moment.
Sam, your comments on the reduction in parliamentary size simply don’t reflect the facts, and ignores the truth that the Greens made two very strong arguments against the reduction in the size of parliament. The first was – and it was entirely true (in fact many Lib and Lab heavyweights have subsequently publicly admitted it is true) – that the sole motivation for them combining to reduce the size of the parliament was to shaft the Greens and their voting constituency. I presume you’re able to see why that is a travesty of democracy in any language or country.
The second argument the Greens have consistently made that you have ignored has also been proven to be true, and has been openly acknowledged by the major parties, to the point it’s now Liberal policy to address the numbers question as well: – and that is that a 25 seat parliament means as little as a 13 seat government, which means not engouh ministers and / or virtually no back bench, and god help you if you don’t have the talent and competency in your *huge* government of 13 souls to tackle ministerial roles. Labor has done more in the last 5 years to demonstrate why this completely fails the Tasmanian people than any other party – 3 premiers, 3 DPs and at this point a complete inability to sack two grossly incompetent ministers because there’s no-one to replace them.
Less visible but more telling in many ways has been the almost complete inability of the current Labor government over many years to pursue part or even anything resembling a coherent legislative agenda – in fact bills drafted by public servants said to be a priority have languished years, and some have been so poorly prepared and managed they have been delayed.
To illustrate just how crippling it is to have so few ministers, here’s the Deputy Premier Lara Gidding’s Portfolios:
Attorney -General
Minister for Justice
Minister for Health
here’s David Llewellyn’s portfolios:
Primary Industries and Water
Energy and Resources
Planning
Or how about Michelle O’Byrne?
Environment, Parks and Heritage
Tourism and the Arts
Sport and Recreation
Hospitality
Are you seriously going to suggest that it’s possible for even a very competent person to manage such significant portfolios well? I presume you’re not so foolish to argue that just because Tasmania is small this somehow reduces the amount of work involved to some trivial amount per portfolio. Or how about the conflicts of interest created by having Ministers responsible for multiple portfolios where their interest’s clash?
Seriously, anyone who sees the reduction in the size of the Tasmanian parliament as simply some sort of shallow political tactic with similarly shallow consequences that only matter to one party really don’t get democracy, sorry.
Pterosaur @82, I said @69 that it would be better if one of the three parties got a majority.
Myriad @ 84, I said @ 79 that even if it was the Lib Lab intention to disenfranchise the Greens voters then it was never going to work because in a PR voting system if you get the votes, you get the seats. The number of votes needed one party to get a seat is the same as any party. If the Lib Labs really believed that their scheme was going to work then they don’t understand the Tasmanian electoral system.
As for the other point about depth of talent, I suppose so, but I never said anything about it in the first place.
Of course, one way around the problems of the ministerial talent pool might be to have a system like the US in which talent was brought in that was accountable to parliament.
As I’ve argued elsewhere though, this is why regional government might be better than state government.
Fran,
Can you think of a reason why a State government could not do this but a regional one could not?
Oops – obviously, that last “not” should not be there.
Plainly, Andrew, either type of government could do this, but the point is that a regional government wouldn’t have the size or complexity of the brief that a Federal government could have in areas such as IR, Education, Infrastructure, Health, Human Services, etc …
This functionality would largely fall outside their domain (at least at policy level). They could be advising what they’d like and putting proposals and administering or coordinating programs within their bailiwicks, but overall policy direction and the framework for roll out, auditing and compliance would be a level up.
We are not going to get a majority government in Tasmania. Crikey today suggests that born agains like Michael Ferguson and Jacquie Petrusma are likely to win. Hope my friend Cait Catt is wrong on that. Wish Danny Nalliah would stay out of Tasmania and stick to Victoria. He and Margaret Tighe could run quite a good campaign for the upper house there on an anti-abortion platform, suggesting voters vote below the line and leave out candidates like Candy Broad, who is pro-abortion. They won’t. They are not smart enough, thankfully.
Caroline, perhaps they are smart enough not to try to campaign on an anti-abortion platform, as this could bring forth a counter-mobilisation of the pro-choice majority which would teach politicians and commentators a sharp lesson about where the numbers really lie on the issue, and break the pro-lifers’ hold on a certain kind of cowardly mainstream politician of the kind we have a lot of in Queensland.
I am reluctant to support abortion, and would have been reluctant to support Candy Broad, but I feel that the tactics used by anti-abortion groups, such as their emotive advertising and their hounding of people entering abortion clinics, are counter productive.
I’ve just looked at the Catch the Fire web site. Pastor Danny now wishes to be known by his birth name of Daniel. That is a decision made by God. Also google uses two forms of his surname. Catch the Fire uses Nalliah. I think he does a lot of good things even if he is a bit loopy.
Nalliah? Does a lot of good things? You mean, when he says that the families and children who died in the Black Saturday fires died because God thinks Victorians are sinful? I won’t say what I think of him – and you – because it’ll contravene the LP moderation policy.
The problem with catching the fire is that you get burnt hands. In this instance a better idea would be to put the fire out by pissing on it.
Sam, Nalliah isn’t worth pissing on.
Richard Flanagan in the Tasmanian times:
Actually, the BLF conducted the Green Bans back in the 70s, so it’s even a bit unfair to compare Tasmanian Labor to them.
Update: New thread – please direct comments here.
Sorry – Link!