Might we not suggest that the electorate has also become divorced and disingenuous? At the last federal election we were offered two main choices.

One, to vote for a well presented range of forward looking policies by a party with a strong track record in fiscal and administrative government, and two, to elect its parliamentary opposition with a demonstrably poor track record in both fiscal and legislative jurisdiction.

A party openly indulging in a mendacious campaign aided and abetted by dubious outside agitators, peddling untruths about Medicare, and unable to state its objective policies. Clearly the electorate was discombobulated by an overly long electoral campaign, and desirous of expressing its dissatisfaction with the government in general.

It had to be faced that the Greens as an over-vocal minority, could no longer pull the votes of the disenchanted and had no practical policies to offer a fickle and naive electorate who sought refuge in voting for the so-called Independents and small faction groups.

The Liberals won government by a very slender majority. A naive, divorced and disingenuous electorate had hobbled them and now complains that the government cannot enact its pre-election policies. Beyond question the other side of the coin is not very attractive and one wonders if the kettle is calling the pot black.

UNFORTUNATELY this topic is debated rather than discussed in a rational manner. People are branded as either “believers” or “deniers” so climate change has achieved religious status requiring faith.

It has become too politicised with opinions branded as left or right and any sober scientific analysis gets lost in the verbal fog.

The climate is obviously changing. It always has and always will. What is less certain is that human activity has made a significant contribution.

The fact that carbon dioxide levels have increased in tandem with industrial development does not prove or disprove a causal effect. Climate is a complex topic that requires a lot more research before more convincing conclusions can be made.

In spite of all the appropriate authorities giving the go ahead to a much overdue and anticipated finale to the great saga of the CH Smith site, some group has to throw a spanner in the works.

The city has waited too long for developers to act and now when we have a local consortium actually showing that it will go ahead with its plans we have a small group of dissenters holding it up.

Well, I cannot see the rotten and rotting beams and flooring holding up anything. As architects one would not expect them to build a house with rotten timber so why not leave this well alone and let the city get back some dignity and usefulness on the old site?

All this unnecessary delay will only make the work harder as the weather changes to winter conditions. Work must be started so that we don’t lose the whole of the site again through further destruction by procrastination, vandals and the elements.

This area is one of the oldest and original parts of the Port of Launceston and most of the history has already been researched and archived for posterity.

The planners, who must once again be congratulated, have looked into this long and hard and much of the original buildings will be retained, renovated and reconstructed.