The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Tasmanian Greens and the terror of coalitions > Comments

Tasmanian Greens and the terror of coalitions : Comments

By Binoy Kampmark, published 24/3/2010

The resurgent Greens are deemed the true winners of the Tasmanian election with five seats.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
Which bed to jump into indeed.

Bartlett's Labour has indicated it will step down rather than form a minority government with the Greens.

The Liberal Leader Will Hodgman's pre-election promise to get tough on eco-terrorists will also sit badly with the Greens as it could conceivably result in them having to be complicit in prosecuting the pinup girl whose wild accusations cheerfully broadcast by the ABC (that shining gum trees poison the water of a country town) terrorised the populace and doubtless delivered the Green's balance of power.

The ABC's Australian story crew also utterly doused itself in inglorious ordure with its abrogation of the community's expectation that the ABC might actually indulge in reason-based reporting, rather than what can only be their negligience or bloody mindedness.

What fun.
Posted by hugoagogo, Wednesday, 24 March 2010 9:05:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Another good example of wedge politics.

The greens are seen as the far left, and the liberals made a great effort early in to paint Labor with the green brush. After the hiding in 2004 Labor had no choice but to distance itself from the greens with a pledge not to form a coalition government with them, and to try and take the central ground.

However, with insufficient seats to govern in its own right labor now can only form government with either a coalition with the liberals or the greens. It would prefer the greens, but going back on its word would tag labor as liars and pernanently paint them with the green brush. This might get them power for the next 4 years, but would cripple them in many future elections.

It will be interesting to see what results.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Wednesday, 24 March 2010 3:02:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Glad to see the Greens gaining ground in Tasmania. Hardly unsurprising given the shenanigans surrounding the forest industry.

Have to admit I was rooting for Independent candidate Andrew Wilkie in Denison - not sure how the results stand at the moment. Wilkie left the Greens (as reported) due to internal disagreements. He would be a great addition to the Tasmanian Parliament in keeping the B's honest.
Posted by pelican, Wednesday, 24 March 2010 3:51:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is still a bit early to claim that the ALP, and Liberals won ten seats each and greens 5, as the electoral office is waiting 10 days to receive final postal votes. After that they then start cutting up the preferences that could see a voter's 5th choice of 10th elected. So it could be possible to be a 10,10,4,1 result or a 11,10,4, the four being the victorious greens who might or might not increase their current 4 seats!

Even with 5 seats the greens do not have a mandate for their policies, prior to the election they claimed 80% opposed the environmentally neutral modern pulp mill, despite only getting 20% they now claim the pulp mill is dead, yet it is supported by both the Liberals and the ALP.

Prior to the election the greens claimed that over 60% opposed current forest management in Tasmania, with 26 academics from the University of Tasmania quoting a poll conducted by the PR company of Get Up and the Wilderness Society to justify demands to tear up the Regional Forest Agreement between the Commonwealth and the State Government.

This agreement locks up 3 million hectares of Tasmania in National Parks and ecological reserves, with half being high conservation value forests.
Yet this massive reserve system, at levels almost 5 times greater than set by the IUCN and WWF, is condemned by the greens who demand that all industrial timber harvesting be banned from the State's forests.

Instead they have adopted the 2004 policy given to Mark Latham with disastrous results as there 'new' blueprint. By doing so, they have ignored Kevin Rudd's commitment to the RFA and have ensured that the current Tasmanian election is no reason for either the Commonwealth or Tasmanian governments to enter into grubby back room deals with this minor party.
Posted by cinders, Wednesday, 24 March 2010 6:43:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
More Green - it's a Beautiful thing.

..

I would remind people that Bob Brown won convincingly on the basis of science, evidence and fact in the matter of the RFA not adequately protecting the 3 species in question.

Following GreenBrowny's victory, j.howard and some other vile slime simply rewrote the RFA to state that it was protecting these species, the case was appealed and the rest is history.

Seriously, what a pitiful joke. No science, no reason, no logic, flagrant disregard for reasonable principals of law etc

To go to court, win on the law of the day, only to have the law changed and the case over turned with the added penalty of incurring an infestation of wig parasites to boot is LAUGHABLE australia!

As previosuly said, it is what I call the tin pot law of the transplanted genocidal pom.

..

RussiaToday recently reported that since '95 or '97 some 35% of the thickness of the north polar cap has melted reducing its thickness considerably, as evidenced by core samples from memory.

All nearby nations of course are scrambling to get a piece of the resources which will become more accessible and how best to preserve certain fish stocks who have no regard for lines on maps is being considered.

Point being, because of the grip these foul conservative morons have on the political process, media etc the reality of materiality that science reveals is often hidden from the public.

Even if people choose to vote for their own vested interests, people should be thankful that the Greens, along with the likes of CSIRO, the bureau of Met and eminent scientists world wide are actually prepared to illuminate scientific realities.

Seriously, only a fool would believe a frothing at the mouth closet catholic like abbot and his liberal party on issues of global security.
Posted by DreamOn, Wednesday, 24 March 2010 9:50:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm seriously thinking of moving to Tasmania. Their electoral system is so much more democratic than Queensland's :)
Posted by CJ Morgan, Wednesday, 24 March 2010 10:03:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What is happening in Tassie is a sign of things to come on the mainland.
Most would rather have the main two parties represent them fairly, but the fact is they are currently more alike than different. Both lean to the Right and since Howard, any centralist, evidence based policy is unfairly branded "extreme". The media is now so biased that even the ABC cannot be central: they too are being accused of "Left wing bias" even when they are slightly Right of center!
With Labour pushing for Church based policy of information censorship they have become un-votable by many: they have crossed the line into very dangerous policy. Abbott is clearly unsuitable for office as he represents an even more extreme version of Howard...and it says a lot about the rest of the party. Liberals have abandoned liberalism and pretty much all policy based on consistent ideals, Labour has also abandoned any democratic socialist ideals and continues to support profiteering industries and corporate welfare.
Alas, the Greens are the only party that recognise the "War on Drugs" is causing more harm than good and that the environment is more important than the old folks rights to income without thrift or effort.
The neo-capitalist theory that wealth can be lent into existence, hyper inflation is OK so long as it's housing, wars can be never-ending and that obscene profits from non-productive industries is perfectly OK...all while exporting the jobs to cheap Asian countries is unquestioned by the media and the economic "experts".
We are in the grip of extremists in the mainstream and they have successfully mislead the public. Our kids will curse the generations that allowed such stupidity to reign.
Posted by Ozandy, Thursday, 25 March 2010 10:28:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Full Federal Court overturned the flawed decision on the Wielangta case not because of an amendment but because the judgement was made in error. The Full Bench http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCAFC/2007/186.html overturned the lower court declarations that future forestry operations in Wielangta were likely to have a significant impact on the broad toothed stag beetle (the beetle), the Tasmanian wedge tailed eagle (the eagle) and the swift parrot (the parrot).

In doing so it did not rely on an amendment made by the State and Federal governments after the original flawed decision, the Full court said: "The amendment to cl 68 of the RFA, insofar as it relates to CAR, simply puts in clearer language what we regard as the true meaning of the original clause" and "In our view the clarification effected by the new cl 68, which would have been unnecessary but for the erroneous decision below, does not rob the RFA of its character of a regional forest agreement as defined."

What this case shows is the degree that the environment movement will go to "win". The court transcript shows that Senator Brown went to the coupe to search for the rare beetle, rolling habitat logs and collecting a specimen, that turned out to be the wrong species. His chief scientific witness also went to the forests and set many pit fall traps lined with chemical anti freeze to collect and kill the rare beetle to supply Senator Brown with evidence. The death of one of these endangered beetles recorded for the court case is the only known death of the beetle in the decade since the RFA was signed in 1997.
Posted by cinders, Thursday, 25 March 2010 1:31:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CJ, I know you only do it to get a bite, I do too, still as no one else will do it, I'll have to.

How can a system that gives 20% of voters, power over the other 80% be called democratic?

On the other question, when are you thinking of going? I don't think it will take long to raise the price of a removalist, once we start fund raising.
Posted by Hasbeen, Thursday, 25 March 2010 2:14:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hasbeen: << How can a system that gives 20% of voters, power over the other 80% be called democratic? >>

A system that gives 20% of the voters 20% of the seats has to be more democratic than the 'winner takes all' optional preferential system in Queensland that effectively disenfranchises around half the electorate. The Greens won't have "power over the other 80%", rather they'll have a seat at the table of government, as they should.

Thanks for the offer of financial assistance - I'll remember you if and when we do go, but it won't be at least 5 years or so. Sorry to disappoint :)
Posted by CJ Morgan, Thursday, 25 March 2010 4:37:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Posted by cinders, Thursday, 25 March 2010 1:31:17 PM

" .. "

Nonsense. You don't know what you are talking about. If you want to seriously discuss the matter, and I would welcome that, why not read the High Court decision?

As for the clause in question, why not post both the original and the subsequent amendment?

As for the wild accusations, do you have any evidence for that?
Posted by DreamOn, Thursday, 25 March 2010 7:40:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
How odd.

I don't appear to be able to find the HCA decision on AustLii anymore.

Can anyone assist?
Posted by DreamOn, Thursday, 25 March 2010 8:26:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'd love to see Liberal and Labor form a coalition in Tasmania and then abolish the current Hare-Clark electoral system, replacing it with either preferential or first past the post voting. That way, the Greens wouldn't win a seat in the Tasmanian parliament and we'd return to majority government. It would be a win for democracy and for good governance.
Posted by Bernie Masters, Monday, 29 March 2010 10:27:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy