Sunday, April 18, 2010

The solution for the Tasmanian political deadlock

With the “traditional” negotiation between political parties in Tasmania has failed to reach any workable solution, the Tasmanian politicians need to examine “non-traditional” way to solve this dilemma.

Before we go deep in the “non-traditional” solution, let us examine the political situation there. The Tasmanian new parliament is composed of 25 seats: 10 Labor, 10 Liberals and 5 Greens. The traditional solution for such situation is to form a minority government by either of big parties enters a deal with the minor party (the Greens).

But with the stiff refusal of the Liberals to negotiate with the Greens for “principled reasons” (despite the Greens repeated tries to beg meeting with the Liberals to negotiate forming a coalition government with the Greens), the only other option was for the Labor to enter an agreement with the Greens. But with the Greens refusal to accept one ministerial post and the refusal of the Labor to offer the Greens more posts, the impasse had one “Greens” solution. The Greens solution is to let the Labor pre-election government continues functioning with no majority in the parliament. But this government would be very fragile and would collapse soon in the face of the first important issue to be debated in the parliament.

In other countries and when there is political or economical instability, the big parties usually come together to form a government of “national unity”. And because Tasmanians now are in deep political instability, the only workable solution is to form a government of national unity.

The solution works by forming a government of 50 – 50 Labor – Liberals where the cabinet will have equal numbers of Liberals and Labor ministers. The issues of premiership could be solved either by rotating the post between 2 premiers each 2 years. Or it could be reached by appointing première and deputy première with equal authorities.

By doing this the democracy will be partially transferred from the parliament to the cabinet. And when there is very divisive issue, they could take it to the parliament to be decided by all politicians, including the minor party’s representatives.

By doing this the Tasmanians will have more stable government. And if we recall historical experience of minority government when both the Labor and the Greens entered accord 1989, the government was very instable that it collapsed after 3 years. Not only this. Both parties that entered the accord lost heavily in the following election, where Liberals won the government and Greens lost 4%. And this is why the Labor is not keen to do this again.

The solution of forming “government of national unity” will give good stability for the Tasmanian government, until the following election happens where one of the big parties could secure majority in the parliament.

Few people think, falsely, that the failure of either big party to secure majority on its own right is because of the surge in the Greens vote. This false impression came to the mind of people because of all this noise in the Greens camp to paint a picture that we are witnessing Greens revolution in Australia. Close study of election results’ statistics could easily revealed that the Greens vote and representation was not significantly higher than the Greens vote in 2002 election (18.1% comparing to 21.3% in 2010 election). But at that time (2002 election), Labor could convince more Liberals’ voters to keep voting for Labor as a better government. This year’s election, the Liberals could not convince enough voters to abandon the Labor and vote for change of government. And the Labor government could not convince enough of its voters to keep voting for it. So the move of votes was in fact between the Labor and Liberals, and not towards the Greens. What makes this more realistic is that an election at the same date in South Australia could not see surge of Greens revolution their.

We know now that any coalition government between the Greens and any of either big party would end disastrously bad, to both sides of such coalition. Exactly as what happened in 1989.

A government of national unity would see both major parties compromise their minor differences. And that is more stable than living or working with the empty rhetoric the Greens would all of us to hear.

Liberals – Greens proposed Coalition: Voters need to be both alert and alarmed!

Bravo, bravo, bravo and million bravos.

It is confirmed by the Tasmanian Greens leader and the Australian Greens leader: the Greens is seeking coalition government with the Liberals.

In politics, we understand that forces entering coalition arrangement would have policies, vision and ideologies in common. In this instance let us ask the Greens leaders how close they are with the Liberals on:
1- Pessimism on acknowledging the global warming issues.
2- The eager to clear the Tasmanian forests, and every forest in Australia.
3- Selling public assets to multi-national corporations regardless of the devastating impacts on Australians lifestyle.
4- Locking up children, women and men for indefinite times in detention centres.
5- Destroying public education, public health and public housing.
6- Invading other countries of Iraq, Afghanistan and possibly Iran and Syria.
7- Promoting Islamophobia and racism in the society and introducing draconian “Anti-Terrorism” laws.
8- Alliance with far-right Christian groups who wants to bring Australia back to dark ages of Crusades.
9- Anti gays and anti drugs policy.

And we will not accept any lies and deceptions from the Greens leaders and hierarchies, anymore. They are seeking entering far-right government that will bring Tasmania to its knees on all above mentioned issues of principles.

The Greens will say that they are doing this to pacify the extreme nature of the Liberal party in Tasmania. On this issue let us explain to the readers how the things work in any coalition government: the cabinet will meet, discuss proposals and then vote on adopting the proposals before putting these proposals to the parliament for vote. And with Greens getting only one or two ministerial posts, they can argue and argue against: clearing Tasmanian forests, selling local hospitals and schools, cutting funding of community projects,…etc. But at the end of the day, the vote will be in the side of the Liberals (who has the majority in the cabinet).

Doing this would mean that the Liberals will claim, rightly, that these devastating decisions were taken with the Greens support.

We believe that the Greens in other states, other than Tasmania, will vend more lies and deceptive claims that the Greens are uniquely a federation of independent Greens parties and groups. They will tell us lie after lie about the no support of the NSW Greens or Victorian Greens of such devastating move.

As if we have forgotten that the Victorian Greens has struck similar deal with the Liberals in the 2006 state election. And at that time, the Greens leader Bob Brown arrogantly and shamelessly tried to lie on us and said that such a deal was a “rumour” launched by the environment minister, Peter Garrett.

And we still did not forget that the NSW Greens also tried to strike a deal with the Liberals in the state election, 2007. At that time, the Liberals were more principled and refused to strike a deal with a party that “promote drugs’ abuse”. The Greens denied the move and branded it to be a “rumour” again.

And before that the Greens struck deal with the far racist One Nation party in 2001 Federal election. The deal that saw Ms Kerry Nettle elected to the senate. And the Greens is still denying this deal and calling it “rumour”.

This time the Greens cannot deny the “rumour”. It was confirmed by Bob Brown and Nick McKim. And they were proud of it. It was broadcasted by all media outlets.

We are sure that Tasmanians did not vote for this. They voted for the Greens to stop the regressive policies and lack of actions on issues that matter. Now the Greens will participate in making more regressive policies and moves.

The Tasmanian election and its aftermath should ring very alarming bills: be aware of the Greens lies and deceptions.
The Tasmanian election aftermath demonstrates that Greens does not have neither ideology nor clear politics. Hence the voters should be very alarmed and alert.

The Tasmanian election aftermath means that the voting for the Greens in the next federal election definitely means voting for the Liberals. And anyone who is conceding voting for the Greens should know that infact they are voting for an extreme right government lead by the extreme new conservatives Tony Abbot and Phillip Ruddock.

Anyone voting for the Greens in the next Federal election should be aware that they are voting for:
1- Government that will re-play the race card, which would definitely means detaining innocent people including children and women indefinitely.
2- Government that is supported by the far-right new-conservatives that will support promoting Islamophobia and division in the society.
3- Government that will sell what have left from public assets to multi-national big corporation.
4- Government that deny existence of global warming and consider taking any steps to reduce emission as a waste of public money.

While we are not surprised by Greens seeking alliance with the far right forces (as they did it before several times as I mentioned above). But for now we are saying very loud: shame on the Greens for deceiving voters by entering coalition with the far right Liberal party. And soon we will campaign to expose the Greens’ deceptive claims of being “alternative progressive” force.

And after deceiving its voters (environmentalists, gays, pro-abortionist, pro-refugees rights,…) we want to ask simple question: who can buy the Greens lies anymore in the future?!

After Tasmanian election aftermath we declare from now that in the next Federal election the Greens will be last on our preference list. The same as what we did in Auburn local government election 2008. At that election we cost the Greens a seat there.