It's a bit late for 'Virtue Signalling' isn't it?

THIS IS TODAY... I suppose that it is not all that surprising that election candidates might be unsubtle enough to indulge in a spot of VIRTUE SIGNALLING but what fools do they imagine that you are, indeed the electorate is, that anyone might swallow this stuff uncritically and vote for them accordingly.

Now that is an interesting idea – voting accordingly and uncritically – given that in Launceston about the only thing on show to do with Local Govt. is 'virtue signalling'. A cynic would spot this stuff right-up and cynics get called out and are usually misunderstood.

A wise sage, paraphrased, is quoted as saying "cynicism is just a rough way of telling the truth". A cynic right now in the municipality of the 'City of Launceston' has quite a bit see and to 'speak roughly about'.

Now take 'POWER DRESSING' for instance, and say 'the tie' or 'not the tie' or 'colour', 'baseball caps', 'lipstick', 'the suit' or 'not the suit', 'fancy dress', and oh my goodness 'shorts and a footy jumper', 'old casuals in Ravo'. etc. etc. etc. Along with 'talking heads' it's on display whenever you look.

You are well advised to be alert to the language of 'virtue' and then think critically - very critically. However, there're some who are a bit aware and are personally avoiding 'personal appearances' for 'virtue's sake' – and safety's sake.

If these 'devices' are being used you have a clue as to just what is at stake – an income opportunity typically. For the occasion, "I'm one of you" or  'I'm at one with you"and usually that is as far from reality as Lagos and New York are 'apart'. There are several expletives available for use here but I'll resist.

Then comes 'the gunnadoooz' all of which, for incumbents, is delusional fiction because if it meant anything we'd all know about it and be able to measure the progress 'in real time'. 

For the aspirants it simply signals a level of naivety commensurate with grandeur of 'the promise'. In the end all that a hapless voter can do is be aware, very, very, aware that this 'game playing' is going on and remember all that's been promised and not delivered or run a 'credibility check-cum-fact check' for most of this stuff. 

Confucius says, "He who speaks without modesty will find it difficult to make his words good."  And, Criss Jami, Killosophy tells us, “Tolerance! The virtue that makes one bite his tongue so that he can tear out his hair.”

Tandra Vale October 17 

THE COUNT TODAY 

47309

Launceston City

14970

31.64%

VOTE CAREFULLY, VERY, VERY, CAREFULLY

SOURCE GO TO:http://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2018/10/council-voting-please-be-careful.html?m=1

CONTEXT: If 'change' is what you are voting for this is recommended reading given the vagaries of the Tasmanian electoral system. A change of personnel is all we'll get at this election but it will be a step along the way if real change is to eventually happen and in a meaningful way.

The Local Govt. model in Tasmania is well and truly broken. Much of this is down to our elected representatives disinclination to be accountable and transparent – not to mention their non-performance in so many instances.

It appears as if the only way Local Govt's dysfunctionalism can be addressed is incrementally.

So, if change is on your agenda take very good care and Dr Kevin Bonham's advice may well be helpful.

Council Voting - Please Be Careful!

Dr Kevin Bonham

I've already made this point in my Hobart guide but I thought I should make it prominently in a separate post to cover all councils. Please feel very free to share and spread widely.

A scourge of Tasmanian council elections is the high rate of informal voting. Informal votes are votes that are returned but cannot be counted as they are not valid votes. The main reason the informal voting rate is high is that voters make mistakes and the rules concerning this are stupid. The reason the rules are stupid is that governments have failed to fix them. The previous Labor/Greens government ignored warnings that bringing in all-in all-out elections would cause a high informal voting rate under the current system. The current Liberal government has so far done nothing to fix it. The Local Government Act needs to be reformed to provide savings provisions for voters who make honest mistakes.

When you get your ballot papers in the mail, the ballot paper for Councillors will have an instruction at the top saying "Number the boxes from 1 to [some number] in order of your choice". At the bottom it says "Number at least [some other number] boxes to make your vote count". The first number is the number of candidates, the second is the number to be elected.

What the instructions don't tell you is that if you make a mistake before you get to that second (minimum) number, your vote won't be counted - at all!

So for instance, Hobart is electing 12 councillors. You can number up to 36 boxes but for your vote to count you need to at least number the boxes 1 to 12 once and once only. If you include any of those numbers more than once, your vote is invalid and will not count at all. If you skip any of those numbers, your vote is invalid and will not count at all. So for instance, if you put two number 8s but no number 9 on a Hobart councillor paper, that's it, your vote will not be valid. Even had you made just one of these two mistakes, your vote would not count. I personally saw huge piles of ballot papers rejected for these sorts of reasons in 2014. 

Especially, do not think "oh I really can't find 12 candidates, I'll just pick 11, surely that's good enough?" It isn't. It's the same as posting in a blank ballot.

If you make a mistake involving doubling or omitting numbers after the minimum number, that's not such a big deal. Don't let that put you off numbering as many boxes as you want to. A mistake after the minimum number just means that if your vote gets to the point where you made the mistake (which depending on your preference ordering might not happen anyway) then at that point your vote will exhaust from the system. It may be that much of your vote's value has been used up helping people get elected by that stage anyway.

It's especially easy to omit or double numbers if you like voting from the bottom up, which lots of us do.

One way to avoid these sorts of errors is to practice voting on a separate sheet of paper (or spreadsheet) first. Once you have an order you can check it by listing the numbers from 1 to the number of candidates on another piece of paper, and going through your practice vote from the top, crossing off each number as it appears. If you go to cross off a number and find you've already crossed it off, that probably means you've doubled up somewhere. If a number doesn't get crossed off, look for that number and see if you've missed it.

If you make a mistake on your actual ballot paper, and you're using a pen, you can correct it by crossing the incorrect number out and writing the correct one. (Pencil is much easier, since you can just erase it, and there's no reason not to use pencil.) But if you do this make sure it is very clear what your actual voting order is.

As to the question of numbering all of the boxes vs only some of them - assuming you have time to consider it - I almost always number all of the boxes. The important thing to remember if there are several candidates you don't like, is that how you rank the candidates at the bottom of the list will never help any of them beat candidates who you ranked higher - but it may help the candidate you see as the lesser evil defeat one you really can't stand. If you have ranked a candidate 30th out of 36, your vote cannot reach them or help them until everyone you ranked 1 to 29 has been elected or eliminated. However, it might then help them beat those you have ranked 31 to 36.

LAUNCESTON AND THE STATUS QUO

There's no need to say that the  STATUS QUO almost definitely dose not look much like this yet!  Given that with this as a background, we did a survey and the respondents agreed. We then ask them to give us a percentage chance for a number of DIGITALLY PRINTED STRUCTURES to be printed in the City of Launceston Municipality 'precinct' in the 'life of the next Council' IF the status  quo were to persist. SO, here are the results in percentage terms;

• 1 structure in 4 years = 0.001%
• 2 structures in 4 years = 0.001%
• 10 structures in 4 years = 0.00001%
• 100  structures in 4 years = 0.00000%
• NB respondents were forced to provide a number

Given the information randomly selected here via the videos that outcome might well be regarded as indictment of some kind and a judgement on the progressiveness of the community currently voting in a Council election. 

If the outcome resulted from people only watching 1 or 2 videos that would be indicative of a community with its 'minds collectively slammed shut'. If ALL the videos had been watched – and there was no attempt to access that – that would be indicative of a new standard being set for 'status quoism' anywhere on the planet. 

Since most Launcestonians are having great difficulties sifting the candidates into sets they might be able to support and trust for the next 4 years this kind of exercise might be enlightening in term of how committed the electorate is to 'keeping things the same'.

DIGIAL PRINTED HOUSING

https://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/3d-printed-concrete-home/

www.youtube.com/watch?v=nH-zpnoNLEU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nH-zpnoNLEU

BUILDING ON DEMAND 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nH-zpnoNLEU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzmCnzA7hnE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nH-zpnoNLEU

WHEN IS AN ADVOCATE NOT AN ADVOCATE?

Election time is accountability time, and for incumbent aldermanic representatives its a bit like presenting oneself at the PEARLY GATES after a misspent life. If those who you represent are inclined to look kindly upon you MIGHT let you through. However, if you have not been paying attention while you have been collecting your allowances it is likely that you will be left lingering on the steps watching your replacements leisurely wandering past to take their place at 'the table'.

Ratepayers and residents are extraordinarily powerful at times like this. It is the time when delinquent alderpeople in Launceston look to ratepayers and residents to remember and forget depending how well they have behaved. It is a lot like waiting expectantly for the tooth fairy to turn up or forget your existence.

Some incumbents have hides as thick as a Rino's and you really do have to wonder what they are doing in an election if they have self-assessed. Most, well many at least, who have not had a medical emergency but have friends who have, well might be quizzing themselves right now.

It's not long now before we know just how good Launceston's collective memory is ....  or isn't.

VERY INTERESTING LETTERS

LCC and Election TWO great letters concerning the concerns of ratepayers and difference in councils (The Examiner, October 2) dated by Mr Geoff Smedley and Rob Kenna regarding waste and greed by the LCC. ............. As a ratepayer of Launceston I cannot believe the money that was spent and wasted by the Launceston City Council. ............. If this was a private business, the doors would have shut well and truly by now. Mr Rob McKenna talks about bike lanes up Westbury Rd ($400,000), spare a thought for the supposed great bike lanes in Normanstone Road, a similar amount. I didn't know how to get into my driveway with all the white lines. But after complaints from people, another huge amount was spent grinding the white lines off. If any other council is considering a merger, I suggest be very wary and wait until we have new new councillors, a new Mayor. ............. This council needs renewing, not recycling. The malls - one is as barren as the other is cluttered . Playgrounds - thousands on playgrounds. The over spend on all of their projects makes me suspicious . Have your say people. ............. Steve Rogers, South Launceston. 

Mayor candidates Reading the article in The Examiner about Launceston’s mayoral candidates, I was disappointed but not surprised that not one of them mentioned fixing our city’s ailing infrastructure. ............. As for Alan Harris’s suggestion to meddle with the Gorge, its greatest asset is that it is unspoiled and a natural and delightful part of our city and should not be interfered with. ............. By the way, I liked Basil Fitch’s offer to not claim any remuneration. Perhaps all councillors should do the same. ............. Richard Hill, Newstead. 

Launceston council elections............. WHY should I vote for a name and face on a sign or handout? ............. I don’t know you. You haven’t knocked on my door to listen to my concerns. ............. All I hear is city, city, city. What about the Suburbs? ............. What about the decades ago proposed eastern bypass to replace the council approved defacto eastern bypass using suburban roads and streets? ............. What about tackling the fast food packaging that litterers throw from their cars? What about the trip hazard ridden suburban footpaths? What about the microscopic dust that covers our cars, residences and which we breathe? ............. Dennis Camplin, Ravenswood.

EDITOR'S NOTE: There is growing evidence that Launcestonians are getting the message that this Council is like a blocked toilet that needs a bloody good flush. There is one in the mix who has been trying to be accountable but is swimming against the tide with this council, with all the crap in it!  It's analogous to swimming in the Tamar. 

He can be excused for choosing the sidelines against such odds. However, hold the Mayor accountable now! Heaven forbid that we might suggest to you who to vote for but we can implore you to use social media and do some research and be very very critical.  think about it, we're likely to have the next lot for 4 years UNLESS someone sees the light and the State Govt has an inquiry into Local Govt. in Tasmania. Vote carefully!

A CAREFUL VOTE IS A BETTER VOTE

Notice how on the candidate's promotion only one candidate even goes close to committing to accountability and transparency! The subliminal message seems to be 'vote for me and I'll do what I like, take the stipend, and quietly do all kinds of deals with all kinds of people and go away those who do not like it'. All of that and no commitment to talk to those who gave them their vote. it gets worse but let's not talk about that here. 

ASK THOSE YOU VOTE FOR TO COMMIT TO ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY. If they wont, or don't, give them the flick and if you cannot find 12 to do this you are better off not voting at all as you can expect to be screwed over in just about every way imaginable.

LETTER TO THE TREASURER

Dear Mr Gutwein,

Treasurer, as a consequence of today's council meeting in Launceston the proposition that the City of Launceston has borrowed something in the order of $20Million from the State Government, interest free for five years was contested. By the end of question time the matter was not resolved and:

• The level of debt the next Council will be required to manage was left unclear and ambiguous;
• The circumstances of any debt – and it is clear that Council is in fact indebted to the State Govt. – that too was left unhelpfully unclear and ambiguous.

When ratepayers and residents are being asked to vote for representatives who will manage the city's fiscal position this circumstance is absolutely untenable. The very notion that the discussion that led to this circumstance, something that was negotiated behind closed doors, and seemingly under the provisions of SECTION 62, is far from satisfactory or anything representing accountability. 

Likewise, the lack of transparency ratepayers and residents are able to rely upon appears to be unacceptably low.

Treasurer, I draw your attention to my previous correspondence on this matter and I am now seeking your prompt advice in order that Launceston's residents, ratepayers and other voters can be well and appropriately informed when they vote.

Yours sincerely,

Basil Fitch

Candidate for Mayor & Alderman

City of Launceston Council

Basil Fitch, 5 Waveney Street South Launceston

Basil Fitch fitchbasil2@gmail.com

ELECTION SIGNAGE PLUS HUBRIS AND ARROGANCE EQUALS MAYHEM IN SUBURBIA

Click here for story link with image album

This is one of those occasions when what is being wondered about is what you can get away with whilst chasing your prize. Potter Stewart says "ethics is knowing the difference between what you have a right to do and what is right to do." And, then there is William E. Gladstone who tells us that "justice delayed is justice denied." And then the Bible tells us “I have the right to do anything,” you say—but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything”—but not everything is constructive"... 1 Corinthians 10:23

Very quickly we discover that 'the law is an ass' as Dickens is oft quoted saying so. Election signs  – the coreflutes – are popping up all over as if there is no reason as to why they should not and that it is some kind of 'free-for-all'..

Of course there are  constraints and all it takes is a phone call to Town Hall and you can have it all explained to you in vivid detail. If you are 'an incumbent' the word apparently is 'put them up and by the time anybody complains they will have done their work' – that is how this thing works apparently!

On the other hand if you are a 'new player', well you are going to have to play by the rules because you will be told that you must. If the credibility gap is 'ginormous' do not worry that's just the way of the world.

By now those in Launceston who are curious about who are the 'serious players' in the council game –those seeking the income in the main – will know who they are and mostly it'll be the incumbents relying on 'the regulations police' looking the other way if they want an easy/easier life 'going forward'. 

The most interesting thing about these signs, and where they are placed, is the underlying subliminal messaging that is going on. They are typically placed on property where the owner wants, or may want in future, to curry favour with Council and/or a candidate. More to the point the positioning of signs, how many and how they look, send out all kinds of messages about 'who has the pull' and yet it tells you very little, in most cases, about 'who you will be able to trust to represent you'– for that you are going to have to look elsewhere and very hard. 

There is no doubt that the signage is repulsive and little more than 'visual pollution' albeit that this signage is destined to disappear – but not quickly enough.Yet the perpetrators will pull the political rabbit out of their hat as they do in the 'NO JUNK MAIL' plea on letter boxes ... 'its not junk/pollution ... its important information'. 

However, you'd think that the Mayor would not only know the rules and likewise be alert to, and be respectful of the regulations, and the values they apparently seek to engender... but it seems no!

Anyway, in a 21st Century context these 'coreflutes' are a rather dumb 'yesterday strategy' belonging to 'yesterday people'– people bereft of an idea. As for embracing 'new paradigms' and being able to see ahead, and taking those they claim they want to lead along a different road, forget that idea.

Interestingly, two candidates have chosen to go without these 'coreflutes' and to get with the 21st Century program this election. Next time there is a strong possibility that this strategy will be seen as dumb and'old hat'.

By comparison and contrast this election will tell us something as a consequence of all this and especially so as the 21st Century finally kicks in with its disruptive technologies etc.

So, let us see what happens between now and when the electors' voting papers arrive in the post and the results are broadcast on people's 'devices'. In the meantime it seems that some candidates might well be scurrying around taking down signage given that the regulations were made 'crystal clear' at today's meeting at Town Hall.

AGENDA ALERT OCT 8 2018 CITY OF LAUNCESTON

8 October 2018 Council Meeting

• Meeting Date08 October 2018
• Meeting TypeOrdinary Meeting

Agenda, Attachments and Minutes for the Council Meeting of 8 October 2018

https://www.launceston.tas.gov.au/Agendas-Minutes/8-October-2018-Council-Meeting

OPEN LETTER: Money & Launceston

https://moneyandlaunceston.blogspot.com/

Dear, Treasurer Peter Gutwein et al,

At the public meeting organised by Launceston's Chamber of Commerce and the Examiner held in Inveresk's Tram Sheds Oct 3 I alerted the audience to Launceston's 'debt level'. Because I've attend most Council meetings in the last four years I have been able to glean that to the best of my knowledge, Council is currently in debt and that the 'functional debt' is in the order of $20Million.

I have been projecting this $20Million figure in my campaigning material for Mayor & Alderman for some weeks now and my estimate has gone unchallenged by anyone at Council until the 'Tram Sheds Forum'. At the end of the presentation Mayor van Zetten announced:

1. That my $20Million claim/assertion was wrong; and
2. That the actual Council debt was something in the order of $9Million.

How did I arrive at $20Million?

• Firstly, as I understand it Council was offered $9Million to realise the C H Smith development. from your pool of development funds ($60Million); and that
• GM Dobrynsky accepted a further $11Million from those funds, monies that you were managing to enable Tasmanian Councils to bring forward 'already planned projects' that lacked the funds to  enable them to proceed expediently; so, consequently
• It was/is public knowledge that Council had borrowed $20Million interest free from the State Govt to be repaid after 5 years, 
• Consequently, it can be extrapolated from this scenario that the city is carrying a 'functional debt' of $20Million.

The $11Million was taken up by GM Robert Dobrynszki under SECTION 62 of the Local Government Act as I understand it. Mr Dobrynszki did so before Council had an opportunity to consider the loan or its conditions in ether open or closed Council. When questioned in an open council meeting GM Dobrynszki confirmed that he had secured the $11Million under the provisions of SECTION 62.

Moreover, it is my clear understanding that currently $10.5Million rests in the 'council financials', and that these monies have not been activated, and in a timely context, this situation is noted in the appropriate agenda item. Furthermore, the circumstance and its general implications have been substantiated by a senior council officer.

The situation set out above is my clear understanding of events as they have revealed themselves. Nonetheless, the Mayor challenges my understandings and seeks to undermine my credibility and experience. Furthermore, all too conveniently, the Mayor challenges the veracity of my assessment of Council's somewhat impecunious fiscal position at the end of its term.

At election time this kind of ambiguity is 'absolutely untenable' and especially so given the questions that arise as a consequence of such a difficult debt level that will impact upon ratepayers and that will need to be managed very carefully – possibly beyond the Council's next term.

The first question arising being, does this situation, as it's set out here, represent sound fiscal stewardship? After that there are the questions to do with Council holding 'borrowed monies' in what appears to be some kind of 'slush fund' in waiting for a 'political rainy day'.

Plus, there are a  myriad of questions that might well come into play – questions to do with integrity for the most part.

Mayor van Zetten's position becomes more and more problematic the more closely it is scrutinised. The matter is non-trivial and it should be clarified speedily in the context of the election currently being contested in the City of Launceston.

Treasurer, I am now seeking your prompt advice in order that Launceston's residents, ratepayers and other voters can be well and appropriately informed when they vote.

Yours sincerely,

Basil Fitch
Candidate for Mayor & Alderman
City of Launceston Council
Basil Fitch, 5 Waveney Street South Launceston

Basil Fitch fitchbasil2@gmail.com